Cardiology News

TOPLINE:

Beyond the nutritional quality of a diet, the timing of meals is important, with later first and last meals of the day associated with increased risks for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially in women, results of a large prospective study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 103,389 participants, mean baseline age 42.6 years and 79% women, who were volunteers in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé, a cohort study launched in France to better understand the relationship between nutrition and health.
• Participants completed questionnaires that in addition to data on socio-demographics, lifestyle, and physical activity provided information on when foods and beverages were consumed during each day, and they self-reported major health events, including CVDs.
• Researchers assessed associations between time of first meal of the day (before 8 am, 8-9 am, after 9 am) and last meal (before 8 pm, 8-9 pm, after 9 pm), number of eating occasions, and duration of nighttime fasting (12 h or less, 12-13 h, more than 13 h) and the risk for CVD, controlling for a large number of potential confounders, among them age, sex, education, income, smoking, and physical activity level.
• During a median follow-up of 7.2 years, 2036 cases of overall CVD, 988 cases of cerebrovascular disease (stroke, transient ischemic attack), and 1071 cases of coronary heart diseases (myocardial infraction, angina pectoris, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty) were reported.

TAKEAWAY:

• Each additional hour delaying the time of the first meal of the day was associated with a higher risk for overall CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12; P = .02), with the association stronger in women than in men.
• Each additional hour in delaying the time of the last meal was associated with an increased risk for cerebrovascular disease; here, a last meal after 9 pm was associated with a 28% higher risk than a meal before 8 pm (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.55; P < .01).
• There was no association between number of eating occasions and either overall CVD or cerebrovascular disease and no association between meal timing or number of eating occasions and risk for coronary heart disease.
• Each hour increase in nighttime fasting was associated with a 7% lower risk for cerebrovascular disease (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; P = .02) but not with a risk for overall CVD or coronary heart disease.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest a potential benefit of adopting earlier eating timing patterns and coupling a longer nighttime fasting period with an early last meal, rather than breakfast skipping, in CVD prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Anna Palomar-Cros, Barcelona Institute for Global Health and Department of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain, and colleagues. It was published online on December 14, 2023, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

Information on shift work, exposure to night light, use of recreational drugs, and timing of physical activity, medication or alcohol consumption, all of which are potential disruptors of circadian rhythms, was not available, and sleep time and duration were available for only a subgroup of patients. Unknown or unmeasured potential confounders (eg, being awakened by children) could have contributed to residual confounding. Reverse causation bias linked to change in behaviors in people with poor health having difficulty getting out of bed in the mornings can’t be ruled out. Participants in the NutriNet-Santé cohort are more likely to be women, have a higher socioeconomic status, and healthier behavior patterns than the general population, perhaps limiting extrapolation of results.

DISCLOSURES:

The NutriNet-Santé study is supported by Ministère de la Santé, Santé Publique France, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement (INRAE), Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM), and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Beyond the nutritional quality of a diet, the timing of meals is important, with later first and last meals of the day associated with increased risks for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially in women, results of a large prospective study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 103,389 participants, mean baseline age 42.6 years and 79% women, who were volunteers in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé, a cohort study launched in France to better understand the relationship between nutrition and health.
• Participants completed questionnaires that in addition to data on socio-demographics, lifestyle, and physical activity provided information on when foods and beverages were consumed during each day, and they self-reported major health events, including CVDs.
• Researchers assessed associations between time of first meal of the day (before 8 am, 8-9 am, after 9 am) and last meal (before 8 pm, 8-9 pm, after 9 pm), number of eating occasions, and duration of nighttime fasting (12 h or less, 12-13 h, more than 13 h) and the risk for CVD, controlling for a large number of potential confounders, among them age, sex, education, income, smoking, and physical activity level.
• During a median follow-up of 7.2 years, 2036 cases of overall CVD, 988 cases of cerebrovascular disease (stroke, transient ischemic attack), and 1071 cases of coronary heart diseases (myocardial infraction, angina pectoris, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty) were reported.

TAKEAWAY:

• Each additional hour delaying the time of the first meal of the day was associated with a higher risk for overall CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12; P = .02), with the association stronger in women than in men.
• Each additional hour in delaying the time of the last meal was associated with an increased risk for cerebrovascular disease; here, a last meal after 9 pm was associated with a 28% higher risk than a meal before 8 pm (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.55; P < .01).
• There was no association between number of eating occasions and either overall CVD or cerebrovascular disease and no association between meal timing or number of eating occasions and risk for coronary heart disease.
• Each hour increase in nighttime fasting was associated with a 7% lower risk for cerebrovascular disease (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; P = .02) but not with a risk for overall CVD or coronary heart disease.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest a potential benefit of adopting earlier eating timing patterns and coupling a longer nighttime fasting period with an early last meal, rather than breakfast skipping, in CVD prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Anna Palomar-Cros, Barcelona Institute for Global Health and Department of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain, and colleagues. It was published online on December 14, 2023, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

Information on shift work, exposure to night light, use of recreational drugs, and timing of physical activity, medication or alcohol consumption, all of which are potential disruptors of circadian rhythms, was not available, and sleep time and duration were available for only a subgroup of patients. Unknown or unmeasured potential confounders (eg, being awakened by children) could have contributed to residual confounding. Reverse causation bias linked to change in behaviors in people with poor health having difficulty getting out of bed in the mornings can’t be ruled out. Participants in the NutriNet-Santé cohort are more likely to be women, have a higher socioeconomic status, and healthier behavior patterns than the general population, perhaps limiting extrapolation of results.

DISCLOSURES:

The NutriNet-Santé study is supported by Ministère de la Santé, Santé Publique France, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement (INRAE), Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM), and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Beyond the nutritional quality of a diet, the timing of meals is important, with later first and last meals of the day associated with increased risks for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially in women, results of a large prospective study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 103,389 participants, mean baseline age 42.6 years and 79% women, who were volunteers in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé, a cohort study launched in France to better understand the relationship between nutrition and health.
• Participants completed questionnaires that in addition to data on socio-demographics, lifestyle, and physical activity provided information on when foods and beverages were consumed during each day, and they self-reported major health events, including CVDs.
• Researchers assessed associations between time of first meal of the day (before 8 am, 8-9 am, after 9 am) and last meal (before 8 pm, 8-9 pm, after 9 pm), number of eating occasions, and duration of nighttime fasting (12 h or less, 12-13 h, more than 13 h) and the risk for CVD, controlling for a large number of potential confounders, among them age, sex, education, income, smoking, and physical activity level.
• During a median follow-up of 7.2 years, 2036 cases of overall CVD, 988 cases of cerebrovascular disease (stroke, transient ischemic attack), and 1071 cases of coronary heart diseases (myocardial infraction, angina pectoris, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty) were reported.

TAKEAWAY:

• Each additional hour delaying the time of the first meal of the day was associated with a higher risk for overall CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12; P = .02), with the association stronger in women than in men.
• Each additional hour in delaying the time of the last meal was associated with an increased risk for cerebrovascular disease; here, a last meal after 9 pm was associated with a 28% higher risk than a meal before 8 pm (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.55; P < .01).
• There was no association between number of eating occasions and either overall CVD or cerebrovascular disease and no association between meal timing or number of eating occasions and risk for coronary heart disease.
• Each hour increase in nighttime fasting was associated with a 7% lower risk for cerebrovascular disease (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; P = .02) but not with a risk for overall CVD or coronary heart disease.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest a potential benefit of adopting earlier eating timing patterns and coupling a longer nighttime fasting period with an early last meal, rather than breakfast skipping, in CVD prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Anna Palomar-Cros, Barcelona Institute for Global Health and Department of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain, and colleagues. It was published online on December 14, 2023, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

Information on shift work, exposure to night light, use of recreational drugs, and timing of physical activity, medication or alcohol consumption, all of which are potential disruptors of circadian rhythms, was not available, and sleep time and duration were available for only a subgroup of patients. Unknown or unmeasured potential confounders (eg, being awakened by children) could have contributed to residual confounding. Reverse causation bias linked to change in behaviors in people with poor health having difficulty getting out of bed in the mornings can’t be ruled out. Participants in the NutriNet-Santé cohort are more likely to be women, have a higher socioeconomic status, and healthier behavior patterns than the general population, perhaps limiting extrapolation of results.

DISCLOSURES:

The NutriNet-Santé study is supported by Ministère de la Santé, Santé Publique France, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement (INRAE), Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM), and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medication people with type 2 diabetes use to manage their blood sugar also appears to protect their hearts and kidneys, according to a study in JAMA Network Open. 

These pills, known as sodium-glucose cotransport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, reduce the amount of blood sugar in a kidney by causing more glucose to be excreted in urine.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) cannot be cured and often leads to renal failure. SGLT2 inhibitor drugs can help stave off this possibility. Acute kidney disease (AKD), on the other hand, is potentially reversible. It typically occurs after an acute kidney injury, lasts for up to 90 days, and can progress to CKD if left unchecked. 

“There has been a notable absence of targeted pharmacotherapy to offer protection to these patients,” said Vin-Cent Wu, MD, PhD, a nephrologist at National Taiwan University Hospital in Taipei, and an author of the study. 

For the retrospective analysis, Dr. Wu and his colleagues looked at data from more than 230,000 adults with type 2 diabetes whose health records were gathered into a research tool called the TriNetX, a global research database. Patients had been treated for AKD between 2002 and 2022. Major adverse kidney events were noted for 5 years after discharge, which were defined as events which required regular dialysis, major adverse cardiovascular events such as a heart attack or stroke, or death. 

To determine the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Wu and colleagues compared outcomes among 5317 patients with AKD who received the drugs with 5317 similar patients who did not. Members of both groups had lived for at least 90 days after being discharged from the hospital and did not require dialysis during that period. 

After a median follow-up of 2.3 years, more patients who did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor had died (994 compared with 481) or had endured major stress to their kidneys (1119 compared with 504) or heart (612 compared with 295). The relative reduction in mortality risk for people in the SGLT2-inhibitor arm was 31% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.77).

Only 2.3% of patients with AKD in the study were prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

In the United States, approximately 20% of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD receive a SGLT2 inhibitor, according to 2023 research.

“Our study reveals that the prescription rate of SGLT2 inhibitors remains relatively low in clinical practice among patients with type 2 diabetes and AKD,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. “This underscores the need for increased awareness and greater consideration of this critical issue in clinical decision-making.” 

Dr. Wu said that AKD management tends to be conservative and relies on symptom monitoring. He acknowledged that confounders may have influenced the results, and that the use of SGLT2 inhibitors might only be correlated with better results instead of producing a causation effect.

This point was raised by Ayodele Odutayo, MD, DPhil, a nephrologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the study. But despite that caution, Dr. Odutayo said that he found the study to be encouraging overall and broadly in line with known benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in CKD. 

“The findings are reassuring that the medications work even in people who’ve already had some kidney injury beforehand,” but who are not yet diagnosed with CKD, Dr. Odutayo said. 

“There is vast underuse of these medications in people for whom they are indicated,” perhaps due to clinician concern that the drugs will cause side effects such as low blood pressure or loss of salt and fluid, Dr. Odutayo said. Though those concerns are valid, the benefits of these drugs exceed the risks for most patients with CKD. 

Dr. Wu and Dr. Odutayo report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medication people with type 2 diabetes use to manage their blood sugar also appears to protect their hearts and kidneys, according to a study in JAMA Network Open. 

These pills, known as sodium-glucose cotransport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, reduce the amount of blood sugar in a kidney by causing more glucose to be excreted in urine.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) cannot be cured and often leads to renal failure. SGLT2 inhibitor drugs can help stave off this possibility. Acute kidney disease (AKD), on the other hand, is potentially reversible. It typically occurs after an acute kidney injury, lasts for up to 90 days, and can progress to CKD if left unchecked. 

“There has been a notable absence of targeted pharmacotherapy to offer protection to these patients,” said Vin-Cent Wu, MD, PhD, a nephrologist at National Taiwan University Hospital in Taipei, and an author of the study. 

For the retrospective analysis, Dr. Wu and his colleagues looked at data from more than 230,000 adults with type 2 diabetes whose health records were gathered into a research tool called the TriNetX, a global research database. Patients had been treated for AKD between 2002 and 2022. Major adverse kidney events were noted for 5 years after discharge, which were defined as events which required regular dialysis, major adverse cardiovascular events such as a heart attack or stroke, or death. 

To determine the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Wu and colleagues compared outcomes among 5317 patients with AKD who received the drugs with 5317 similar patients who did not. Members of both groups had lived for at least 90 days after being discharged from the hospital and did not require dialysis during that period. 

After a median follow-up of 2.3 years, more patients who did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor had died (994 compared with 481) or had endured major stress to their kidneys (1119 compared with 504) or heart (612 compared with 295). The relative reduction in mortality risk for people in the SGLT2-inhibitor arm was 31% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.77).

Only 2.3% of patients with AKD in the study were prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

In the United States, approximately 20% of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD receive a SGLT2 inhibitor, according to 2023 research.

“Our study reveals that the prescription rate of SGLT2 inhibitors remains relatively low in clinical practice among patients with type 2 diabetes and AKD,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. “This underscores the need for increased awareness and greater consideration of this critical issue in clinical decision-making.” 

Dr. Wu said that AKD management tends to be conservative and relies on symptom monitoring. He acknowledged that confounders may have influenced the results, and that the use of SGLT2 inhibitors might only be correlated with better results instead of producing a causation effect.

This point was raised by Ayodele Odutayo, MD, DPhil, a nephrologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the study. But despite that caution, Dr. Odutayo said that he found the study to be encouraging overall and broadly in line with known benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in CKD. 

“The findings are reassuring that the medications work even in people who’ve already had some kidney injury beforehand,” but who are not yet diagnosed with CKD, Dr. Odutayo said. 

“There is vast underuse of these medications in people for whom they are indicated,” perhaps due to clinician concern that the drugs will cause side effects such as low blood pressure or loss of salt and fluid, Dr. Odutayo said. Though those concerns are valid, the benefits of these drugs exceed the risks for most patients with CKD. 

Dr. Wu and Dr. Odutayo report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medication people with type 2 diabetes use to manage their blood sugar also appears to protect their hearts and kidneys, according to a study in JAMA Network Open. 

These pills, known as sodium-glucose cotransport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, reduce the amount of blood sugar in a kidney by causing more glucose to be excreted in urine.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) cannot be cured and often leads to renal failure. SGLT2 inhibitor drugs can help stave off this possibility. Acute kidney disease (AKD), on the other hand, is potentially reversible. It typically occurs after an acute kidney injury, lasts for up to 90 days, and can progress to CKD if left unchecked. 

“There has been a notable absence of targeted pharmacotherapy to offer protection to these patients,” said Vin-Cent Wu, MD, PhD, a nephrologist at National Taiwan University Hospital in Taipei, and an author of the study. 

For the retrospective analysis, Dr. Wu and his colleagues looked at data from more than 230,000 adults with type 2 diabetes whose health records were gathered into a research tool called the TriNetX, a global research database. Patients had been treated for AKD between 2002 and 2022. Major adverse kidney events were noted for 5 years after discharge, which were defined as events which required regular dialysis, major adverse cardiovascular events such as a heart attack or stroke, or death. 

To determine the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Wu and colleagues compared outcomes among 5317 patients with AKD who received the drugs with 5317 similar patients who did not. Members of both groups had lived for at least 90 days after being discharged from the hospital and did not require dialysis during that period. 

After a median follow-up of 2.3 years, more patients who did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor had died (994 compared with 481) or had endured major stress to their kidneys (1119 compared with 504) or heart (612 compared with 295). The relative reduction in mortality risk for people in the SGLT2-inhibitor arm was 31% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.77).

Only 2.3% of patients with AKD in the study were prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

In the United States, approximately 20% of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD receive a SGLT2 inhibitor, according to 2023 research.

“Our study reveals that the prescription rate of SGLT2 inhibitors remains relatively low in clinical practice among patients with type 2 diabetes and AKD,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. “This underscores the need for increased awareness and greater consideration of this critical issue in clinical decision-making.” 

Dr. Wu said that AKD management tends to be conservative and relies on symptom monitoring. He acknowledged that confounders may have influenced the results, and that the use of SGLT2 inhibitors might only be correlated with better results instead of producing a causation effect.

This point was raised by Ayodele Odutayo, MD, DPhil, a nephrologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the study. But despite that caution, Dr. Odutayo said that he found the study to be encouraging overall and broadly in line with known benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in CKD. 

“The findings are reassuring that the medications work even in people who’ve already had some kidney injury beforehand,” but who are not yet diagnosed with CKD, Dr. Odutayo said. 

“There is vast underuse of these medications in people for whom they are indicated,” perhaps due to clinician concern that the drugs will cause side effects such as low blood pressure or loss of salt and fluid, Dr. Odutayo said. Though those concerns are valid, the benefits of these drugs exceed the risks for most patients with CKD. 

Dr. Wu and Dr. Odutayo report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Proper care of teeth and gums may offer benefits beyond oral health, including improving brain health, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of middle-aged adults without stroke or dementia, poor oral health was strongly associated with multiple neuroimaging markers of white matter injury.

“Because the neuroimaging markers evaluated in this study precede and are established risk factors of stroke and dementia, our results suggest that oral health, an easily modifiable process, may be a promising target for very early interventions focused on improving brain health,” wrote the authors, led by Cyprien A. Rivier, MD, MS, with the Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

The study was published online on December 20, 2023, in Neurology.

Research data came from 40,175 adults (mean age, 55 years; 53% women) with no history of stroke or dementia who enrolled in the UK Biobank from 2006 to 2010 and had brain MRI between 2014 and 2016.

Altogether, 5470 (14%) participants had poor oral health, defined as the presence of dentures or loose teeth. Those with poor (vs optimal) oral health were older, more likely to be male, and had higher prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, overweight/obesity, and current or past smoking history.

In a multivariable model, poor oral health was associated with a 9% increase in white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume (P < .001), a well-established marker of clinically silent cerebrovascular disease.

Poor oral health was also associated with a 10% change in aggregate fractional anisotropy (FA) score (P < .001) and a 5% change in aggregate mean diffusivity (MD) score (P < .001), two diffusion tensor imaging metrics that accurately represent white matter disintegrity.

Genetic analyses using Mendelian randomization confirmed these associations. Individuals who were genetically prone to poor oral health had a 30% increase in WMH volume (P < .001), 43% change in aggregate FA score (P < .001), and 10% change in aggregate MD score (P < .01), the researchers reported.

These findings, they noted, add to prior epidemiologic evidence for an association between poor oral health and a higher risk for clinical outcomes related to brain health, including cognitive decline.

‘Huge Dividends’

The authors of an accompanying editorial praised the authors for looking at the consequences of poor oral health in a “new and powerful way by using as their outcome MRI-defined white matter injury, which is associated with, but antedates by many years, cognitive decline and stroke.”

“The fact that these imaging changes are seen in asymptomatic persons offers the hope that if the association is causal, interventions to improve oral health could pay huge dividends in subsequent brain health,” wrote Steven J. Kittner, MD, MPH, and Breana L. Taylor, MD, with the Department of Neurology, University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore.

“The mechanisms mediating the relationship between the oral health genetic risk score and white matter injury are likely to be complex, but the authors have taken an important step forward in addressing a hypothesis of immense public health importance,” they added.

Data from the World Health Organization suggested that oral diseases, which are largely preventable, affect nearly 3.5 billion people globally, with three out of four people affected in middle-income countries.

Funding for the study was provided in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research Fellowship. The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Megan Brooks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Proper care of teeth and gums may offer benefits beyond oral health, including improving brain health, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of middle-aged adults without stroke or dementia, poor oral health was strongly associated with multiple neuroimaging markers of white matter injury.

“Because the neuroimaging markers evaluated in this study precede and are established risk factors of stroke and dementia, our results suggest that oral health, an easily modifiable process, may be a promising target for very early interventions focused on improving brain health,” wrote the authors, led by Cyprien A. Rivier, MD, MS, with the Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

The study was published online on December 20, 2023, in Neurology.

Research data came from 40,175 adults (mean age, 55 years; 53% women) with no history of stroke or dementia who enrolled in the UK Biobank from 2006 to 2010 and had brain MRI between 2014 and 2016.

Altogether, 5470 (14%) participants had poor oral health, defined as the presence of dentures or loose teeth. Those with poor (vs optimal) oral health were older, more likely to be male, and had higher prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, overweight/obesity, and current or past smoking history.

In a multivariable model, poor oral health was associated with a 9% increase in white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume (P < .001), a well-established marker of clinically silent cerebrovascular disease.

Poor oral health was also associated with a 10% change in aggregate fractional anisotropy (FA) score (P < .001) and a 5% change in aggregate mean diffusivity (MD) score (P < .001), two diffusion tensor imaging metrics that accurately represent white matter disintegrity.

Genetic analyses using Mendelian randomization confirmed these associations. Individuals who were genetically prone to poor oral health had a 30% increase in WMH volume (P < .001), 43% change in aggregate FA score (P < .001), and 10% change in aggregate MD score (P < .01), the researchers reported.

These findings, they noted, add to prior epidemiologic evidence for an association between poor oral health and a higher risk for clinical outcomes related to brain health, including cognitive decline.

‘Huge Dividends’

The authors of an accompanying editorial praised the authors for looking at the consequences of poor oral health in a “new and powerful way by using as their outcome MRI-defined white matter injury, which is associated with, but antedates by many years, cognitive decline and stroke.”

“The fact that these imaging changes are seen in asymptomatic persons offers the hope that if the association is causal, interventions to improve oral health could pay huge dividends in subsequent brain health,” wrote Steven J. Kittner, MD, MPH, and Breana L. Taylor, MD, with the Department of Neurology, University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore.

“The mechanisms mediating the relationship between the oral health genetic risk score and white matter injury are likely to be complex, but the authors have taken an important step forward in addressing a hypothesis of immense public health importance,” they added.

Data from the World Health Organization suggested that oral diseases, which are largely preventable, affect nearly 3.5 billion people globally, with three out of four people affected in middle-income countries.

Funding for the study was provided in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research Fellowship. The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Megan Brooks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Proper care of teeth and gums may offer benefits beyond oral health, including improving brain health, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of middle-aged adults without stroke or dementia, poor oral health was strongly associated with multiple neuroimaging markers of white matter injury.

“Because the neuroimaging markers evaluated in this study precede and are established risk factors of stroke and dementia, our results suggest that oral health, an easily modifiable process, may be a promising target for very early interventions focused on improving brain health,” wrote the authors, led by Cyprien A. Rivier, MD, MS, with the Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

The study was published online on December 20, 2023, in Neurology.

Research data came from 40,175 adults (mean age, 55 years; 53% women) with no history of stroke or dementia who enrolled in the UK Biobank from 2006 to 2010 and had brain MRI between 2014 and 2016.

Altogether, 5470 (14%) participants had poor oral health, defined as the presence of dentures or loose teeth. Those with poor (vs optimal) oral health were older, more likely to be male, and had higher prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, overweight/obesity, and current or past smoking history.

In a multivariable model, poor oral health was associated with a 9% increase in white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume (P < .001), a well-established marker of clinically silent cerebrovascular disease.

Poor oral health was also associated with a 10% change in aggregate fractional anisotropy (FA) score (P < .001) and a 5% change in aggregate mean diffusivity (MD) score (P < .001), two diffusion tensor imaging metrics that accurately represent white matter disintegrity.

Genetic analyses using Mendelian randomization confirmed these associations. Individuals who were genetically prone to poor oral health had a 30% increase in WMH volume (P < .001), 43% change in aggregate FA score (P < .001), and 10% change in aggregate MD score (P < .01), the researchers reported.

These findings, they noted, add to prior epidemiologic evidence for an association between poor oral health and a higher risk for clinical outcomes related to brain health, including cognitive decline.

‘Huge Dividends’

The authors of an accompanying editorial praised the authors for looking at the consequences of poor oral health in a “new and powerful way by using as their outcome MRI-defined white matter injury, which is associated with, but antedates by many years, cognitive decline and stroke.”

“The fact that these imaging changes are seen in asymptomatic persons offers the hope that if the association is causal, interventions to improve oral health could pay huge dividends in subsequent brain health,” wrote Steven J. Kittner, MD, MPH, and Breana L. Taylor, MD, with the Department of Neurology, University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore.

“The mechanisms mediating the relationship between the oral health genetic risk score and white matter injury are likely to be complex, but the authors have taken an important step forward in addressing a hypothesis of immense public health importance,” they added.

Data from the World Health Organization suggested that oral diseases, which are largely preventable, affect nearly 3.5 billion people globally, with three out of four people affected in middle-income countries.

Funding for the study was provided in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research Fellowship. The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Megan Brooks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in JAMA Network Open on the subject of whether statin therapy may be able to offset some of the excess risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among women taking menopausal hormone therapy.

It’s an important issue because we know that menopausal hormone therapy, especially oral therapy, is linked to an excess risk for VTE, approximately doubling of risk in the randomized clinical trials. There is also emerging evidence from some randomized trials, such as the Jupiter trial, that step therapy may be linked to a reduction in risk. This may be related to anti-inflammatory or antithrombotic effects of statin therapy.

The authors made use of a very large administrative claims database, Optum Health, to look at more than 15 million annual members. They were able to identify 2000 women with a diagnostic code for VTE treatment. The women were between ages 50 and 64 years, and they were compared with 200,000 controls without VTE, matched in 10-to-1 fashion.

About 50% of the women were taking oral hormone therapy, and about 50% took non-oral transdermal or other non-oral formulations of hormone therapy. The odds ratio for VTE was 1.53 among the women who did not also have prescription records for statin therapy. They were able to look at prescribed prescriptions for both the hormone therapy and the statins. Among the women prescribed hormone therapy and also low- to intermediate-dose statins, the odds ratio was 1.29. So that was quite a mitigation of the elevated risk. Among the women taking high-intensity statins, the odds ratio was 1.06, and there was no significant elevation.

We do need more data and more research on this question. One approach would be a meta-analysis of all of the existing randomized trials of hormone therapy in recent years wherein there was increased uptake of statin therapy to look at this question not only for VTE but also for coronary heart disease, stroke, and other CVD outcomes to see whether statin therapy is associated with some attenuation of the excess risk. We also need a targeted randomized trial of statins vs placebo among women who have clear indications for hormone therapy but may be at some increased risk for VTE. That type of trial would be extremely helpful.

In the interim, there are ways to minimize risk for VTE among women who are clear candidates for menopausal hormone therapy, especially among women at increased risk for VTE. These include choosing a transdermal rather than an oral formulation of hormone therapy and using lower doses of hormone therapy. Also, women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy and also for statins, it’s obvious that statins could be co-prescribed. Even among women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy but only intermediate borderline candidates for statin therapy, the prescription of statins might be considered in that clinical scenario to try to mitigate that excess risk for VTE.

JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from: Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in JAMA Network Open on the subject of whether statin therapy may be able to offset some of the excess risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among women taking menopausal hormone therapy.

It’s an important issue because we know that menopausal hormone therapy, especially oral therapy, is linked to an excess risk for VTE, approximately doubling of risk in the randomized clinical trials. There is also emerging evidence from some randomized trials, such as the Jupiter trial, that step therapy may be linked to a reduction in risk. This may be related to anti-inflammatory or antithrombotic effects of statin therapy.

The authors made use of a very large administrative claims database, Optum Health, to look at more than 15 million annual members. They were able to identify 2000 women with a diagnostic code for VTE treatment. The women were between ages 50 and 64 years, and they were compared with 200,000 controls without VTE, matched in 10-to-1 fashion.

About 50% of the women were taking oral hormone therapy, and about 50% took non-oral transdermal or other non-oral formulations of hormone therapy. The odds ratio for VTE was 1.53 among the women who did not also have prescription records for statin therapy. They were able to look at prescribed prescriptions for both the hormone therapy and the statins. Among the women prescribed hormone therapy and also low- to intermediate-dose statins, the odds ratio was 1.29. So that was quite a mitigation of the elevated risk. Among the women taking high-intensity statins, the odds ratio was 1.06, and there was no significant elevation.

We do need more data and more research on this question. One approach would be a meta-analysis of all of the existing randomized trials of hormone therapy in recent years wherein there was increased uptake of statin therapy to look at this question not only for VTE but also for coronary heart disease, stroke, and other CVD outcomes to see whether statin therapy is associated with some attenuation of the excess risk. We also need a targeted randomized trial of statins vs placebo among women who have clear indications for hormone therapy but may be at some increased risk for VTE. That type of trial would be extremely helpful.

In the interim, there are ways to minimize risk for VTE among women who are clear candidates for menopausal hormone therapy, especially among women at increased risk for VTE. These include choosing a transdermal rather than an oral formulation of hormone therapy and using lower doses of hormone therapy. Also, women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy and also for statins, it’s obvious that statins could be co-prescribed. Even among women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy but only intermediate borderline candidates for statin therapy, the prescription of statins might be considered in that clinical scenario to try to mitigate that excess risk for VTE.

JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from: Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in JAMA Network Open on the subject of whether statin therapy may be able to offset some of the excess risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among women taking menopausal hormone therapy.

It’s an important issue because we know that menopausal hormone therapy, especially oral therapy, is linked to an excess risk for VTE, approximately doubling of risk in the randomized clinical trials. There is also emerging evidence from some randomized trials, such as the Jupiter trial, that step therapy may be linked to a reduction in risk. This may be related to anti-inflammatory or antithrombotic effects of statin therapy.

The authors made use of a very large administrative claims database, Optum Health, to look at more than 15 million annual members. They were able to identify 2000 women with a diagnostic code for VTE treatment. The women were between ages 50 and 64 years, and they were compared with 200,000 controls without VTE, matched in 10-to-1 fashion.

About 50% of the women were taking oral hormone therapy, and about 50% took non-oral transdermal or other non-oral formulations of hormone therapy. The odds ratio for VTE was 1.53 among the women who did not also have prescription records for statin therapy. They were able to look at prescribed prescriptions for both the hormone therapy and the statins. Among the women prescribed hormone therapy and also low- to intermediate-dose statins, the odds ratio was 1.29. So that was quite a mitigation of the elevated risk. Among the women taking high-intensity statins, the odds ratio was 1.06, and there was no significant elevation.

We do need more data and more research on this question. One approach would be a meta-analysis of all of the existing randomized trials of hormone therapy in recent years wherein there was increased uptake of statin therapy to look at this question not only for VTE but also for coronary heart disease, stroke, and other CVD outcomes to see whether statin therapy is associated with some attenuation of the excess risk. We also need a targeted randomized trial of statins vs placebo among women who have clear indications for hormone therapy but may be at some increased risk for VTE. That type of trial would be extremely helpful.

In the interim, there are ways to minimize risk for VTE among women who are clear candidates for menopausal hormone therapy, especially among women at increased risk for VTE. These include choosing a transdermal rather than an oral formulation of hormone therapy and using lower doses of hormone therapy. Also, women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy and also for statins, it’s obvious that statins could be co-prescribed. Even among women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy but only intermediate borderline candidates for statin therapy, the prescription of statins might be considered in that clinical scenario to try to mitigate that excess risk for VTE.

JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from: Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows sudden cardiac deaths among collegiate athletes decreased over a recent 20-year period, but risks are still elevated among males, Black players, and basketball players, suggesting more intensive screening among these groups is needed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study examined incidence and surrounding circumstances of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among student athletes who competed in at least one varsity sport at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II, or III institutions in the 20 years from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2022.
• Researchers determined causes of death and gathered demographic characteristics using multiple methods, including review of autopsy and other official documents, Internet searches, and contacts to next of kin, coaches, athletic trainers, coroners, medical examiners, scholarship foundations, and physicians involved in the case.
• SCD was defined as sudden unexpected death attributable to a cardiac cause, or a sudden death in a structurally normal heart with no other explanation for death and a history consistent with cardiac-related death that occurred within an hour of symptom onset, or an unwitnessed death occurring within 24 hours of the person being alive.
• Researchers calculated incidence rates over a typical 4-year collegiate career and reported these as athlete-years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of SCD, which accounted for 13% of the 1102 total deaths during the study period, decreased over time, with a 5-year incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61-0.82), while noncardiovascular deaths remained stable.
• IRR for males versus females was 3.79 (95% CI, 2.45-5.88) and for Black versus White athletes was 2.79 (95% CI, 1.98-3.94).
• Basketball and football players were at increased risk of SCD; for example, the incidence rate among Division I Black male basketball athletes was 1:1924 per 4-year athlete-years.
• The most common postmortem finding was autopsy-negative sudden unexplained death, at 19%, followed by idiopathic left ventricular hypertrophy/possible cardiomyopathy (17%) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (13%), with no cases of death attributable to COVID-19 myocarditis.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the reason for the decrease in SCD is unknown, “our data suggest that strategies to reduce SCD among competing athletes may be having a positive effect,” wrote the authors. More intensive screening strategies among groups with high SCD incidence may be warranted, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Bradley J. Petek, MD, Sports Cardiology Program, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. It was published online November 13 in Circulation and presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions (abstract 479).

LIMITATIONS:

Some cases of SCD may have been missed as there is no mandatory reporting system in the United States. Approaches to cardiac autopsy and reporting varied significantly. The cause of death was unknown in 16 cases, and postmortem genetic testing was available for only 3% of athletes. As the study didn’t have data on resuscitated sudden cardiac arrest or preparticipation cardiovascular screening practices and findings, definitive conclusions couldn’t be drawn regarding causal factors underlying the decreased incidence of SCD.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no outside funding source. Dr. Petek has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows sudden cardiac deaths among collegiate athletes decreased over a recent 20-year period, but risks are still elevated among males, Black players, and basketball players, suggesting more intensive screening among these groups is needed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study examined incidence and surrounding circumstances of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among student athletes who competed in at least one varsity sport at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II, or III institutions in the 20 years from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2022.
• Researchers determined causes of death and gathered demographic characteristics using multiple methods, including review of autopsy and other official documents, Internet searches, and contacts to next of kin, coaches, athletic trainers, coroners, medical examiners, scholarship foundations, and physicians involved in the case.
• SCD was defined as sudden unexpected death attributable to a cardiac cause, or a sudden death in a structurally normal heart with no other explanation for death and a history consistent with cardiac-related death that occurred within an hour of symptom onset, or an unwitnessed death occurring within 24 hours of the person being alive.
• Researchers calculated incidence rates over a typical 4-year collegiate career and reported these as athlete-years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of SCD, which accounted for 13% of the 1102 total deaths during the study period, decreased over time, with a 5-year incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61-0.82), while noncardiovascular deaths remained stable.
• IRR for males versus females was 3.79 (95% CI, 2.45-5.88) and for Black versus White athletes was 2.79 (95% CI, 1.98-3.94).
• Basketball and football players were at increased risk of SCD; for example, the incidence rate among Division I Black male basketball athletes was 1:1924 per 4-year athlete-years.
• The most common postmortem finding was autopsy-negative sudden unexplained death, at 19%, followed by idiopathic left ventricular hypertrophy/possible cardiomyopathy (17%) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (13%), with no cases of death attributable to COVID-19 myocarditis.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the reason for the decrease in SCD is unknown, “our data suggest that strategies to reduce SCD among competing athletes may be having a positive effect,” wrote the authors. More intensive screening strategies among groups with high SCD incidence may be warranted, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Bradley J. Petek, MD, Sports Cardiology Program, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. It was published online November 13 in Circulation and presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions (abstract 479).

LIMITATIONS:

Some cases of SCD may have been missed as there is no mandatory reporting system in the United States. Approaches to cardiac autopsy and reporting varied significantly. The cause of death was unknown in 16 cases, and postmortem genetic testing was available for only 3% of athletes. As the study didn’t have data on resuscitated sudden cardiac arrest or preparticipation cardiovascular screening practices and findings, definitive conclusions couldn’t be drawn regarding causal factors underlying the decreased incidence of SCD.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no outside funding source. Dr. Petek has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows sudden cardiac deaths among collegiate athletes decreased over a recent 20-year period, but risks are still elevated among males, Black players, and basketball players, suggesting more intensive screening among these groups is needed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study examined incidence and surrounding circumstances of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among student athletes who competed in at least one varsity sport at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II, or III institutions in the 20 years from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2022.
• Researchers determined causes of death and gathered demographic characteristics using multiple methods, including review of autopsy and other official documents, Internet searches, and contacts to next of kin, coaches, athletic trainers, coroners, medical examiners, scholarship foundations, and physicians involved in the case.
• SCD was defined as sudden unexpected death attributable to a cardiac cause, or a sudden death in a structurally normal heart with no other explanation for death and a history consistent with cardiac-related death that occurred within an hour of symptom onset, or an unwitnessed death occurring within 24 hours of the person being alive.
• Researchers calculated incidence rates over a typical 4-year collegiate career and reported these as athlete-years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of SCD, which accounted for 13% of the 1102 total deaths during the study period, decreased over time, with a 5-year incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61-0.82), while noncardiovascular deaths remained stable.
• IRR for males versus females was 3.79 (95% CI, 2.45-5.88) and for Black versus White athletes was 2.79 (95% CI, 1.98-3.94).
• Basketball and football players were at increased risk of SCD; for example, the incidence rate among Division I Black male basketball athletes was 1:1924 per 4-year athlete-years.
• The most common postmortem finding was autopsy-negative sudden unexplained death, at 19%, followed by idiopathic left ventricular hypertrophy/possible cardiomyopathy (17%) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (13%), with no cases of death attributable to COVID-19 myocarditis.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the reason for the decrease in SCD is unknown, “our data suggest that strategies to reduce SCD among competing athletes may be having a positive effect,” wrote the authors. More intensive screening strategies among groups with high SCD incidence may be warranted, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Bradley J. Petek, MD, Sports Cardiology Program, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. It was published online November 13 in Circulation and presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions (abstract 479).

LIMITATIONS:

Some cases of SCD may have been missed as there is no mandatory reporting system in the United States. Approaches to cardiac autopsy and reporting varied significantly. The cause of death was unknown in 16 cases, and postmortem genetic testing was available for only 3% of athletes. As the study didn’t have data on resuscitated sudden cardiac arrest or preparticipation cardiovascular screening practices and findings, definitive conclusions couldn’t be drawn regarding causal factors underlying the decreased incidence of SCD.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no outside funding source. Dr. Petek has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — Combining an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) does not significantly increase the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with epilepsy, preliminary results of a new study show.

These new data are important, “particularly when we’re talking about a more global perspective, given the vital role of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications in epilepsy care across many middle- and low-income countries where they may be the only readily available treatment options,” said study investigator Emily K. Acton, PhD candidate in epidemiology and a medical student, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. 

The findings also suggest that use of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with DOACs may be associated with a reduction in major bleeding events, although Ms. Acton stressed this requires more research.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
 

Important Implications

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may induce key drug metabolizing enzymes that result in wide-ranging interactions, Ms. Acton told this news organization. “But, in many cases, the clinical significance of these pharmacokinetic interactions is not completely understood.”

This has important implications for managing anticoagulation, said Ms. Acton. “The ease of DOAC use, and growing evidence of the drugs’ safety and efficacy compared to vitamin K antagonists, has led to widespread shifts in clinical practice towards DOACs.”

Due to the relative novelty of DOACs, their interaction profiles have been less than complete, she explained. Evidence that enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may reduce absorption and accelerate metabolism of DOACs, potentially lowering DOAC levels and elevating thromboembolism risk, comes mainly from in vitro and animal studies.

“Research in humans is lacking and complicated in interpretation by inconsistent findings and methodological limitations,” she said.

The investigators wanted to address the “clinical uncertainty” surrounding the real-world relevance of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications and DOAC interactions but conducting a randomized trial “would be neither feasible nor ethical,” said Ms. Acton. 

Using healthcare claims data from October 2010 to September 2021, the researchers conducted an active comparator, new-user cohort study among a nationally representative sample of adults with epilepsy who had been co-prescribed these drugs. 

They compared thromboembolic and major bleeding event rates between exposure to DOACs with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications vs exposure to DOACs with non-enzyme inducing antiseizure medications.

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included in the study were carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and topiramate. Non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and pregabalin.

The researchers used data-adaptive high-dimensional propensity score matching to control for “hundreds and hundreds” of observed confounders, and proxies for unobserved confounders, said Ms. Acton. They identified outcomes based on validated diagnostic coding algorithms for thromboembolic and major bleeding events and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) using Cox proportional hazard models with robust variance estimators to account for clustering within matched pairs.
 

Reduced Risk of Major Bleeding 

Outcomes were analyzed in three separate cohorts. These included patients on DOACs for any indication (indication-agnostic); those on DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF); and those taking DOACs for deep vein thrombus/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE).

In the indication-agnostic analysis, the investigators examined thromboembolic events among 5989 episodes in patients taking both DOACs and enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications, compared witha reference group of 14,671 episodes in patients taking DOACs and non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications.

The reference group was generally older and had a greater prevalence of a number of major comorbidities compared with the exposed group, noted Ms. Acton.

For the indication-agnostic analysis, the aHR was 1.11 (95% CI 0.89-1.39). Results were similar for the AF indication (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.46) and for the DVT/PE indication (aHR 1.11; 95% CI 0.81-1.51).

“This research provides large-scale, real-world evidence enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication use alongside DOACs does not significantly elevate risk of thromboembolic events among a nationally representative epilepsy population,” said Ms. Acton.

However, “it’s always important to consider risk factors for thromboembolic and bleeding events at the level of the individual patient,” she added.

With respect to major bleeding events, there was a slightly reduced risk in the exposed group, specifically in the analysis of subjects with atrial fibrillation, where the aHR was 0.63 (95% CI 0.44-0.89).

“A potential explanation may be pharmacokinetic interaction with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications occurring to a degree that lowers DOAC levels without necessarily negating therapeutic effects,” said Ms. Acton.

However, she cautioned that more research is needed.

As for the differential potency among the various enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications studied, Ms. Acton said results from a secondary analysis in the atrial fibrillation assessment that removed the potentially less potent enzyme inducers, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, didn’t significantly change the study results.
 

‘Really Great News’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, epilepsy expert Daniel M. Goldenholz, MD, PhD, assistant professor of Neurology, Harvard Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, said the finding of no meaningful difference between DOAC plus enzyme-inducing medications vs DOACs plus non-enzyme-inducing medications is encouraging.

“This study asks a very important question at the population level and appropriately tries to control for present and hidden factors using a propensity matching approach,” he said.

The fact that the data support no difference in terms of thromboembolic events “is really great news” for patients taking an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication who need to use a DOAC, he said.

While some patients or clinicians might consider transitioning off an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication, this can lead to new side effects and potentially higher drug costs. “Knowing that a transition may be unnecessary is exciting,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

However, he’s concerned the 1.5-year observation period may not be long enough to see a true effect of these drug combinations.

He also noted that due to the “theoretical higher risk,” patients combining DOACs with enzyme-inducing drugs typically need extra monitoring, which may be less practical outside the US. This suggests “the result may not necessarily generalize outside high-income countries,” he said.

Dr. Goldenholz emphasized that the data are preliminary. “As always, I look forward to a full peer-reviewed study before forming final conclusions.”

The study was supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Ms. Acton and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — Combining an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) does not significantly increase the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with epilepsy, preliminary results of a new study show.

These new data are important, “particularly when we’re talking about a more global perspective, given the vital role of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications in epilepsy care across many middle- and low-income countries where they may be the only readily available treatment options,” said study investigator Emily K. Acton, PhD candidate in epidemiology and a medical student, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. 

The findings also suggest that use of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with DOACs may be associated with a reduction in major bleeding events, although Ms. Acton stressed this requires more research.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
 

Important Implications

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may induce key drug metabolizing enzymes that result in wide-ranging interactions, Ms. Acton told this news organization. “But, in many cases, the clinical significance of these pharmacokinetic interactions is not completely understood.”

This has important implications for managing anticoagulation, said Ms. Acton. “The ease of DOAC use, and growing evidence of the drugs’ safety and efficacy compared to vitamin K antagonists, has led to widespread shifts in clinical practice towards DOACs.”

Due to the relative novelty of DOACs, their interaction profiles have been less than complete, she explained. Evidence that enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may reduce absorption and accelerate metabolism of DOACs, potentially lowering DOAC levels and elevating thromboembolism risk, comes mainly from in vitro and animal studies.

“Research in humans is lacking and complicated in interpretation by inconsistent findings and methodological limitations,” she said.

The investigators wanted to address the “clinical uncertainty” surrounding the real-world relevance of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications and DOAC interactions but conducting a randomized trial “would be neither feasible nor ethical,” said Ms. Acton. 

Using healthcare claims data from October 2010 to September 2021, the researchers conducted an active comparator, new-user cohort study among a nationally representative sample of adults with epilepsy who had been co-prescribed these drugs. 

They compared thromboembolic and major bleeding event rates between exposure to DOACs with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications vs exposure to DOACs with non-enzyme inducing antiseizure medications.

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included in the study were carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and topiramate. Non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and pregabalin.

The researchers used data-adaptive high-dimensional propensity score matching to control for “hundreds and hundreds” of observed confounders, and proxies for unobserved confounders, said Ms. Acton. They identified outcomes based on validated diagnostic coding algorithms for thromboembolic and major bleeding events and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) using Cox proportional hazard models with robust variance estimators to account for clustering within matched pairs.
 

Reduced Risk of Major Bleeding 

Outcomes were analyzed in three separate cohorts. These included patients on DOACs for any indication (indication-agnostic); those on DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF); and those taking DOACs for deep vein thrombus/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE).

In the indication-agnostic analysis, the investigators examined thromboembolic events among 5989 episodes in patients taking both DOACs and enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications, compared witha reference group of 14,671 episodes in patients taking DOACs and non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications.

The reference group was generally older and had a greater prevalence of a number of major comorbidities compared with the exposed group, noted Ms. Acton.

For the indication-agnostic analysis, the aHR was 1.11 (95% CI 0.89-1.39). Results were similar for the AF indication (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.46) and for the DVT/PE indication (aHR 1.11; 95% CI 0.81-1.51).

“This research provides large-scale, real-world evidence enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication use alongside DOACs does not significantly elevate risk of thromboembolic events among a nationally representative epilepsy population,” said Ms. Acton.

However, “it’s always important to consider risk factors for thromboembolic and bleeding events at the level of the individual patient,” she added.

With respect to major bleeding events, there was a slightly reduced risk in the exposed group, specifically in the analysis of subjects with atrial fibrillation, where the aHR was 0.63 (95% CI 0.44-0.89).

“A potential explanation may be pharmacokinetic interaction with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications occurring to a degree that lowers DOAC levels without necessarily negating therapeutic effects,” said Ms. Acton.

However, she cautioned that more research is needed.

As for the differential potency among the various enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications studied, Ms. Acton said results from a secondary analysis in the atrial fibrillation assessment that removed the potentially less potent enzyme inducers, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, didn’t significantly change the study results.
 

‘Really Great News’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, epilepsy expert Daniel M. Goldenholz, MD, PhD, assistant professor of Neurology, Harvard Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, said the finding of no meaningful difference between DOAC plus enzyme-inducing medications vs DOACs plus non-enzyme-inducing medications is encouraging.

“This study asks a very important question at the population level and appropriately tries to control for present and hidden factors using a propensity matching approach,” he said.

The fact that the data support no difference in terms of thromboembolic events “is really great news” for patients taking an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication who need to use a DOAC, he said.

While some patients or clinicians might consider transitioning off an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication, this can lead to new side effects and potentially higher drug costs. “Knowing that a transition may be unnecessary is exciting,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

However, he’s concerned the 1.5-year observation period may not be long enough to see a true effect of these drug combinations.

He also noted that due to the “theoretical higher risk,” patients combining DOACs with enzyme-inducing drugs typically need extra monitoring, which may be less practical outside the US. This suggests “the result may not necessarily generalize outside high-income countries,” he said.

Dr. Goldenholz emphasized that the data are preliminary. “As always, I look forward to a full peer-reviewed study before forming final conclusions.”

The study was supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Ms. Acton and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — Combining an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) does not significantly increase the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with epilepsy, preliminary results of a new study show.

These new data are important, “particularly when we’re talking about a more global perspective, given the vital role of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications in epilepsy care across many middle- and low-income countries where they may be the only readily available treatment options,” said study investigator Emily K. Acton, PhD candidate in epidemiology and a medical student, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. 

The findings also suggest that use of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with DOACs may be associated with a reduction in major bleeding events, although Ms. Acton stressed this requires more research.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
 

Important Implications

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may induce key drug metabolizing enzymes that result in wide-ranging interactions, Ms. Acton told this news organization. “But, in many cases, the clinical significance of these pharmacokinetic interactions is not completely understood.”

This has important implications for managing anticoagulation, said Ms. Acton. “The ease of DOAC use, and growing evidence of the drugs’ safety and efficacy compared to vitamin K antagonists, has led to widespread shifts in clinical practice towards DOACs.”

Due to the relative novelty of DOACs, their interaction profiles have been less than complete, she explained. Evidence that enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may reduce absorption and accelerate metabolism of DOACs, potentially lowering DOAC levels and elevating thromboembolism risk, comes mainly from in vitro and animal studies.

“Research in humans is lacking and complicated in interpretation by inconsistent findings and methodological limitations,” she said.

The investigators wanted to address the “clinical uncertainty” surrounding the real-world relevance of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications and DOAC interactions but conducting a randomized trial “would be neither feasible nor ethical,” said Ms. Acton. 

Using healthcare claims data from October 2010 to September 2021, the researchers conducted an active comparator, new-user cohort study among a nationally representative sample of adults with epilepsy who had been co-prescribed these drugs. 

They compared thromboembolic and major bleeding event rates between exposure to DOACs with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications vs exposure to DOACs with non-enzyme inducing antiseizure medications.

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included in the study were carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and topiramate. Non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and pregabalin.

The researchers used data-adaptive high-dimensional propensity score matching to control for “hundreds and hundreds” of observed confounders, and proxies for unobserved confounders, said Ms. Acton. They identified outcomes based on validated diagnostic coding algorithms for thromboembolic and major bleeding events and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) using Cox proportional hazard models with robust variance estimators to account for clustering within matched pairs.
 

Reduced Risk of Major Bleeding 

Outcomes were analyzed in three separate cohorts. These included patients on DOACs for any indication (indication-agnostic); those on DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF); and those taking DOACs for deep vein thrombus/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE).

In the indication-agnostic analysis, the investigators examined thromboembolic events among 5989 episodes in patients taking both DOACs and enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications, compared witha reference group of 14,671 episodes in patients taking DOACs and non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications.

The reference group was generally older and had a greater prevalence of a number of major comorbidities compared with the exposed group, noted Ms. Acton.

For the indication-agnostic analysis, the aHR was 1.11 (95% CI 0.89-1.39). Results were similar for the AF indication (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.46) and for the DVT/PE indication (aHR 1.11; 95% CI 0.81-1.51).

“This research provides large-scale, real-world evidence enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication use alongside DOACs does not significantly elevate risk of thromboembolic events among a nationally representative epilepsy population,” said Ms. Acton.

However, “it’s always important to consider risk factors for thromboembolic and bleeding events at the level of the individual patient,” she added.

With respect to major bleeding events, there was a slightly reduced risk in the exposed group, specifically in the analysis of subjects with atrial fibrillation, where the aHR was 0.63 (95% CI 0.44-0.89).

“A potential explanation may be pharmacokinetic interaction with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications occurring to a degree that lowers DOAC levels without necessarily negating therapeutic effects,” said Ms. Acton.

However, she cautioned that more research is needed.

As for the differential potency among the various enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications studied, Ms. Acton said results from a secondary analysis in the atrial fibrillation assessment that removed the potentially less potent enzyme inducers, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, didn’t significantly change the study results.
 

‘Really Great News’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, epilepsy expert Daniel M. Goldenholz, MD, PhD, assistant professor of Neurology, Harvard Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, said the finding of no meaningful difference between DOAC plus enzyme-inducing medications vs DOACs plus non-enzyme-inducing medications is encouraging.

“This study asks a very important question at the population level and appropriately tries to control for present and hidden factors using a propensity matching approach,” he said.

The fact that the data support no difference in terms of thromboembolic events “is really great news” for patients taking an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication who need to use a DOAC, he said.

While some patients or clinicians might consider transitioning off an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication, this can lead to new side effects and potentially higher drug costs. “Knowing that a transition may be unnecessary is exciting,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

However, he’s concerned the 1.5-year observation period may not be long enough to see a true effect of these drug combinations.

He also noted that due to the “theoretical higher risk,” patients combining DOACs with enzyme-inducing drugs typically need extra monitoring, which may be less practical outside the US. This suggests “the result may not necessarily generalize outside high-income countries,” he said.

Dr. Goldenholz emphasized that the data are preliminary. “As always, I look forward to a full peer-reviewed study before forming final conclusions.”

The study was supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Ms. Acton and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email vstern@medscape.net to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email vstern@medscape.net to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email vstern@medscape.net to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

TOPLINE:

The time arrived at peak blood pressure (BP) velocity (TAPV) was significantly earlier in children with moderate to severe (MS) obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than in controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers compared 24-hour circadian BP in children with OSA and controls to examine the impact of OSA on circadian BP.
• The study population included 219 children aged 5-14 years: 52 with mild OSA, 50 with MS OSA, and 117 controls.
• Participants underwent 24-hour BP monitoring and actigraphy; models included the times of BP peaks and TAPV.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children with MS OSA had a TAPV for diastolic BP in the morning, an average of 51 minutes earlier than controls (P < .001).
• Evening TAPV was significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls for both systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (95 min, P < .001 and 28 min, P = .028, respectively).
• Midday SBP and DBP velocity nadirs were significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls (57 min, P < .001 and 38 min, P < .01, respectively).
• Overall, children with MS OSA reached most BP values significantly earlier than controls, and both SBP and DBP were significantly elevated in the MS OSA group compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings provide an essential puzzle piece in our understanding of the cardiovascular effects of OSA in children,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Md Tareq Ferdous Khan, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio; the authors of the accompanying editorial were Kate Ching-Ching Chan, MD, and Albert Martin Li, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, China. The study was published online in the journal Sleep on December 13, 2023, along with the accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

More research is needed to investigate the potential mechanisms of action, optimize methodology, and investigate circadian biology via actigraphy and biomarkers, the authors of an accompanying editorial wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The time arrived at peak blood pressure (BP) velocity (TAPV) was significantly earlier in children with moderate to severe (MS) obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than in controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers compared 24-hour circadian BP in children with OSA and controls to examine the impact of OSA on circadian BP.
• The study population included 219 children aged 5-14 years: 52 with mild OSA, 50 with MS OSA, and 117 controls.
• Participants underwent 24-hour BP monitoring and actigraphy; models included the times of BP peaks and TAPV.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children with MS OSA had a TAPV for diastolic BP in the morning, an average of 51 minutes earlier than controls (P < .001).
• Evening TAPV was significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls for both systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (95 min, P < .001 and 28 min, P = .028, respectively).
• Midday SBP and DBP velocity nadirs were significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls (57 min, P < .001 and 38 min, P < .01, respectively).
• Overall, children with MS OSA reached most BP values significantly earlier than controls, and both SBP and DBP were significantly elevated in the MS OSA group compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings provide an essential puzzle piece in our understanding of the cardiovascular effects of OSA in children,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Md Tareq Ferdous Khan, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio; the authors of the accompanying editorial were Kate Ching-Ching Chan, MD, and Albert Martin Li, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, China. The study was published online in the journal Sleep on December 13, 2023, along with the accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

More research is needed to investigate the potential mechanisms of action, optimize methodology, and investigate circadian biology via actigraphy and biomarkers, the authors of an accompanying editorial wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The time arrived at peak blood pressure (BP) velocity (TAPV) was significantly earlier in children with moderate to severe (MS) obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than in controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers compared 24-hour circadian BP in children with OSA and controls to examine the impact of OSA on circadian BP.
• The study population included 219 children aged 5-14 years: 52 with mild OSA, 50 with MS OSA, and 117 controls.
• Participants underwent 24-hour BP monitoring and actigraphy; models included the times of BP peaks and TAPV.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children with MS OSA had a TAPV for diastolic BP in the morning, an average of 51 minutes earlier than controls (P < .001).
• Evening TAPV was significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls for both systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (95 min, P < .001 and 28 min, P = .028, respectively).
• Midday SBP and DBP velocity nadirs were significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls (57 min, P < .001 and 38 min, P < .01, respectively).
• Overall, children with MS OSA reached most BP values significantly earlier than controls, and both SBP and DBP were significantly elevated in the MS OSA group compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings provide an essential puzzle piece in our understanding of the cardiovascular effects of OSA in children,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Md Tareq Ferdous Khan, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio; the authors of the accompanying editorial were Kate Ching-Ching Chan, MD, and Albert Martin Li, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, China. The study was published online in the journal Sleep on December 13, 2023, along with the accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

More research is needed to investigate the potential mechanisms of action, optimize methodology, and investigate circadian biology via actigraphy and biomarkers, the authors of an accompanying editorial wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.