MDedge Neurology

Getting sweet on sweat

Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.

Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.

alex bracken/Unsplash

Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.

Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.

The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.

Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
 

The puff that vaccinates

Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.

Dr. Jeremiah Gassensmith

During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.

In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.

Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!

Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.

Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.

While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.

More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
 

Your hippocampus is showing

Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.

Dr. Michele Migliore

“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.

Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.

Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.

The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:

“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”

“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”

“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”

“I said I can find it.”

“Just ask her.”

“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?

Getting sweet on sweat

Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.

Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.

alex bracken/Unsplash

Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.

Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.

The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.

Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
 

The puff that vaccinates

Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.

Dr. Jeremiah Gassensmith

During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.

In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.

Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!

Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.

Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.

While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.

More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
 

Your hippocampus is showing

Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.

Dr. Michele Migliore

“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.

Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.

Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.

The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:

“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”

“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”

“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”

“I said I can find it.”

“Just ask her.”

“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?

Getting sweet on sweat

Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.

Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.

alex bracken/Unsplash

Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.

Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.

The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.

Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
 

The puff that vaccinates

Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.

Dr. Jeremiah Gassensmith

During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.

In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.

Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!

Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.

Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.

While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.

More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
 

Your hippocampus is showing

Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.

Dr. Michele Migliore

“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.

Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.

Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.

The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:

“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”

“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”

“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”

“I said I can find it.”

“Just ask her.”

“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?

The Food and Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of the overdose reversal agent Narcan (naloxone, Emergent BioSolutions). Greater access to the drug should mean more lives saved. However, it’s unclear how much the nasal spray will cost and whether pharmacies will stock the product openly on shelves. 

Currently, major pharmacy chains such as CVS and Walgreens make naloxone available without prescription, but consumers have to ask a pharmacist to dispense the drug.

“The major question is what is it going to cost,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, said in an interview. “In order for people to access it they have to be able to afford it.”

“We won’t accomplish much if people can’t afford to buy Narcan,” said Chuck Ingoglia, president and CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, in a statement. Still, he applauded the FDA.

“No single approach will end overdose deaths but making Narcan easy to obtain and widely available likely will save countless lives annually,” he said.

“The timeline for availability and price of this OTC product is determined by the manufacturer,” the FDA said in a statement.

Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, called for the drug’s manufacturer to “make accessibility to the product a priority by making it available as soon as possible and at an affordable price.”

Emergent BioSolutions did not comment on cost. It said in a statement that the spray “will be available on U.S. shelves and at online retailers by the late summer,” after it has adapted Narcan for direct-to-consumer use, including more consumer-oriented packaging.

Naloxone’s cost varies, depending on geographic location and whether it is generic. According to GoodRX, a box containing two doses of generic naloxone costs $31-$100, depending on location and coupon availability.

A two-dose box of Narcan costs $135-$140. Emergent reported a 14% decline in naloxone sales in 2022 – to $373.7 million – blaming it in part on the introduction of generic formulations.

Dr. Hurley said he expects those who purchase Narcan at a drug store will primarily already be shopping there. It may or may not be those who most often experience overdose, such as people leaving incarceration or experiencing homelessness.

Having Narcan available over-the-counter “is an important supplement but it doesn’t replace the existing array of naloxone distribution programs,” Dr. Hurley said.

The FDA has encouraged naloxone manufacturers to seek OTC approval for the medication since at least 2019, when it designed a model label for a theoretical OTC product.

In November, the agency said it had determined that some naloxone products had the potential to be safe and effective for OTC use and again urged drugmakers to seek such an approval.

Emergent BioSolutions was the first to pursue OTC approval, but another manufacturer – the nonprofit Harm Reduction Therapeutics – is awaiting approval of its application to sell its spray directly to consumers.

Scott Gottlieb, MD, who was the FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019, said in a tweet that more work needed to be done.

“This regulatory move should be followed by a strong push by elected officials to support wider deployment of Narcan, getting more doses into the hands of at risk households and frontline workers,” he tweeted.

Mr. Ingoglia said that “Narcan represents a second chance. By giving people a second chance, we also give them an opportunity to enter treatment if they so choose. You can’t recover if you’re dead, and we shouldn’t turn our backs on those who may choose a pathway to recovery that includes treatment.”
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of the overdose reversal agent Narcan (naloxone, Emergent BioSolutions). Greater access to the drug should mean more lives saved. However, it’s unclear how much the nasal spray will cost and whether pharmacies will stock the product openly on shelves. 

Currently, major pharmacy chains such as CVS and Walgreens make naloxone available without prescription, but consumers have to ask a pharmacist to dispense the drug.

“The major question is what is it going to cost,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, said in an interview. “In order for people to access it they have to be able to afford it.”

“We won’t accomplish much if people can’t afford to buy Narcan,” said Chuck Ingoglia, president and CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, in a statement. Still, he applauded the FDA.

“No single approach will end overdose deaths but making Narcan easy to obtain and widely available likely will save countless lives annually,” he said.

“The timeline for availability and price of this OTC product is determined by the manufacturer,” the FDA said in a statement.

Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, called for the drug’s manufacturer to “make accessibility to the product a priority by making it available as soon as possible and at an affordable price.”

Emergent BioSolutions did not comment on cost. It said in a statement that the spray “will be available on U.S. shelves and at online retailers by the late summer,” after it has adapted Narcan for direct-to-consumer use, including more consumer-oriented packaging.

Naloxone’s cost varies, depending on geographic location and whether it is generic. According to GoodRX, a box containing two doses of generic naloxone costs $31-$100, depending on location and coupon availability.

A two-dose box of Narcan costs $135-$140. Emergent reported a 14% decline in naloxone sales in 2022 – to $373.7 million – blaming it in part on the introduction of generic formulations.

Dr. Hurley said he expects those who purchase Narcan at a drug store will primarily already be shopping there. It may or may not be those who most often experience overdose, such as people leaving incarceration or experiencing homelessness.

Having Narcan available over-the-counter “is an important supplement but it doesn’t replace the existing array of naloxone distribution programs,” Dr. Hurley said.

The FDA has encouraged naloxone manufacturers to seek OTC approval for the medication since at least 2019, when it designed a model label for a theoretical OTC product.

In November, the agency said it had determined that some naloxone products had the potential to be safe and effective for OTC use and again urged drugmakers to seek such an approval.

Emergent BioSolutions was the first to pursue OTC approval, but another manufacturer – the nonprofit Harm Reduction Therapeutics – is awaiting approval of its application to sell its spray directly to consumers.

Scott Gottlieb, MD, who was the FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019, said in a tweet that more work needed to be done.

“This regulatory move should be followed by a strong push by elected officials to support wider deployment of Narcan, getting more doses into the hands of at risk households and frontline workers,” he tweeted.

Mr. Ingoglia said that “Narcan represents a second chance. By giving people a second chance, we also give them an opportunity to enter treatment if they so choose. You can’t recover if you’re dead, and we shouldn’t turn our backs on those who may choose a pathway to recovery that includes treatment.”
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of the overdose reversal agent Narcan (naloxone, Emergent BioSolutions). Greater access to the drug should mean more lives saved. However, it’s unclear how much the nasal spray will cost and whether pharmacies will stock the product openly on shelves. 

Currently, major pharmacy chains such as CVS and Walgreens make naloxone available without prescription, but consumers have to ask a pharmacist to dispense the drug.

“The major question is what is it going to cost,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, said in an interview. “In order for people to access it they have to be able to afford it.”

“We won’t accomplish much if people can’t afford to buy Narcan,” said Chuck Ingoglia, president and CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, in a statement. Still, he applauded the FDA.

“No single approach will end overdose deaths but making Narcan easy to obtain and widely available likely will save countless lives annually,” he said.

“The timeline for availability and price of this OTC product is determined by the manufacturer,” the FDA said in a statement.

Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, called for the drug’s manufacturer to “make accessibility to the product a priority by making it available as soon as possible and at an affordable price.”

Emergent BioSolutions did not comment on cost. It said in a statement that the spray “will be available on U.S. shelves and at online retailers by the late summer,” after it has adapted Narcan for direct-to-consumer use, including more consumer-oriented packaging.

Naloxone’s cost varies, depending on geographic location and whether it is generic. According to GoodRX, a box containing two doses of generic naloxone costs $31-$100, depending on location and coupon availability.

A two-dose box of Narcan costs $135-$140. Emergent reported a 14% decline in naloxone sales in 2022 – to $373.7 million – blaming it in part on the introduction of generic formulations.

Dr. Hurley said he expects those who purchase Narcan at a drug store will primarily already be shopping there. It may or may not be those who most often experience overdose, such as people leaving incarceration or experiencing homelessness.

Having Narcan available over-the-counter “is an important supplement but it doesn’t replace the existing array of naloxone distribution programs,” Dr. Hurley said.

The FDA has encouraged naloxone manufacturers to seek OTC approval for the medication since at least 2019, when it designed a model label for a theoretical OTC product.

In November, the agency said it had determined that some naloxone products had the potential to be safe and effective for OTC use and again urged drugmakers to seek such an approval.

Emergent BioSolutions was the first to pursue OTC approval, but another manufacturer – the nonprofit Harm Reduction Therapeutics – is awaiting approval of its application to sell its spray directly to consumers.

Scott Gottlieb, MD, who was the FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019, said in a tweet that more work needed to be done.

“This regulatory move should be followed by a strong push by elected officials to support wider deployment of Narcan, getting more doses into the hands of at risk households and frontline workers,” he tweeted.

Mr. Ingoglia said that “Narcan represents a second chance. By giving people a second chance, we also give them an opportunity to enter treatment if they so choose. You can’t recover if you’re dead, and we shouldn’t turn our backs on those who may choose a pathway to recovery that includes treatment.”
 

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Around 86 billion nerve cells in our brain work together in complex dynamic networks to control almost every sensorimotor and cognitive process. However, the way in which the information is processed in the different regions of the brain is still unclear. There are already some promising approaches to specifically influence the dynamics of neuronal networks to treat neurological and psychiatric diseases.

One of the main topics at the Congress for Clinical Neuroscience of the German Society for Clinical Neurophysiology and Functional Neuroimaging (DGKN), recently held in Hamburg, Germany, was the dynamics of cerebral networks in sensorimotor and cognitive processes, as well as disruptions to network dynamics in neurological and psychiatric diseases.

“We will be unable to develop innovative therapies for widespread neurological and psychiatric diseases until we understand neuronal functions on every level of complexity,” Andreas K. Engel, PhD, director of the Institute for Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology at the University Hospital of Hamburg-Eppendorf, president of the DGKN, and congress president, said during an online press conference.
 

Characterizing states of consciousness

For more than 30 years, it has been known that neuronal signals in the brain are dynamically coupled. Despite intensive research, the functional significance of this coupling on information processing is still largely unknown.

Neuroimaging methods such as electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and electrophysiological examinations were used. Model calculations of the data suggest that dynamic couplings of signals in the cortex play a crucial role in memory performance, thinking processes, and developing perception, among other things.

It has already been shown that the network dynamics of neuronal signals could possibly characterize states of consciousness. Neuronal signals and coupling patterns differ significantly between healthy individuals in a waking state and those who are asleep, under general anesthetic, or in a vegetative state. In Dr. Engel’s view, it may be possible in the future for machine learning algorithms to be used to classify states of consciousness.
 

Changes in brain activity as a biomarker?

The differences in the dynamics of neuronal signals between healthy individuals and patients with psychiatric diseases such as schizophrenia appear much more important for clinical practice. “The characteristic changes in brain activity in the primary auditory cortex could be considered a potential biomarker and used to predict the clinical course of psychiatric diseases, such as psychoses,” reported Dr. Engel.

The gamma-band activity in the auditory cortex could be a potential marker for schizophrenia. According to MEG examinations, the values are decreased both in people at increased risk of psychosis and experiencing first symptoms compared with controls.
 

Activation or inhibition of cerebral networks as new therapeutic approaches

New therapeutic approaches based on the activation or inhibition of cerebral networks are currently areas of intensive research. Close interdisciplinary collaboration between basic science researchers and clinicians is necessary, stressed Dr. Engel. The use of noninvasive brain stimulation is already within reach for the neurorehabilitation of stroke patients. “I am optimistic that in a few years brain stimulation will be established as an integral element of stroke therapy,” said Christian Grefkes-Hermann, MD, PhD, director of the department of neurology at University Hospital of Frankfurt and first vice president of the DGKN.

Despite great advances in acute stroke therapy, many patients must endure permanent deficits in their everyday life, he said. According to Dr. Grefkes-Hermann, rehabilitation procedures often have a dissatisfactory effect, and results greatly vary. He hopes that in the future it may be possible to personalize therapy by using network patterns, thereby improving results.

The aim is to reorganize areas of the brain in which the network activity has been disrupted following a stroke using targeted transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). “The most important factor for functional recovery after a stroke is neuronal reorganization,” said Dr. Grefkes-Hermann. With the new methods of neurorehabilitation, network-connectivity disruptions, which are associated with motor function deficits, are first visualized using functional MRI (fMRI).

The imaging or the EEG makes visible the area of the brain that may benefit most from neurostimulation. Subsequently, nerve cells in this region may be precisely stimulated with TMS. Because the healthy hemisphere of the brain is usually overactive after a stroke, there are simultaneous attempts to inhibit the contralesional motor cortex.

Initial results are hopeful. In the initial period after a stroke, TMS can be used in some patients to correct pathological connectivities and thereby improve motor deficits, reported Dr. Grefkes-Hermann. The fMRI pattern can also be used to predict recovery and intervention effects on an individual basis. A phase 3 trial is currently underway of 150 patients who have had a stroke and aims to study the efficacy of the new procedure.
 

Combined TMS and EEG

With the combination of TMS and the simultaneous measurement of EEG activity, a further development of fMRI connectivity analyses is currently being tested. Dr. Grefkes-Hermann believes that this procedure, which is more cost-effective, has higher temporal resolution, can be used directly at the bedside, and has more potential for personalized therapy planning in clinical practice.

The TMS-EEG procedure also makes it possible to predict the risk of post-stroke delirium, which affects around 30% of stroke patients and greatly worsens the outcome, underlined Ulf Ziemann, MD, medical director of the department of neurology at Tübingen (Germany) University Hospital. In a study of 33 patients with acute stroke, the onset of post-stroke delirium could be predicted with a high degree of accuracy by using the TMS-EEG procedure no later than 48 hours after the event.

Other promising, noninvasive methods for neuron activation mentioned by Dr. Ziemann include transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (tFUS) with low intensity, which is being studied for chronic pain, dementia, epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, and depression, as well as transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS), which is also based on ultrasound. In a pilot study of 35 patients with Alzheimer’s disease, use of TPS within 3 months had positive effects on cognition. However, the study was not controlled and therefore further assessments are needed.
 

Custom deep brain stimulation

For deep brain stimulation (DBS), an established therapy for Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders, the aim is individualized, symptom-related network stimulation, reported Andrea Kühn, MD, head of the movement disorders and neuromodulation section in the department of neurology at Charité University Hospital Berlin.

At the panregional collaborative research center ReTune, which has been supported for 4 years now by €10 million from the German Research Foundation (DFG), imaging and computer-assisted programming algorithms are being developed for DBS. They will greatly simplify the time-consuming standard procedure for the best possible setting of the stimulation parameters, which requires a hospital stay of several days.

A randomized crossover study of 35 patients with Parkinson’s disease proved the equivalence of the fast, algorithm-assisted DBS for the control of motor symptoms compared with standard procedures.

The new methods have the potential to considerably improve the outcome of patients with neurological and psychiatric diseases, according to scientists. However, the positive data must still be validated in further studies.
 

This article was translated from Medscape’s German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Around 86 billion nerve cells in our brain work together in complex dynamic networks to control almost every sensorimotor and cognitive process. However, the way in which the information is processed in the different regions of the brain is still unclear. There are already some promising approaches to specifically influence the dynamics of neuronal networks to treat neurological and psychiatric diseases.

One of the main topics at the Congress for Clinical Neuroscience of the German Society for Clinical Neurophysiology and Functional Neuroimaging (DGKN), recently held in Hamburg, Germany, was the dynamics of cerebral networks in sensorimotor and cognitive processes, as well as disruptions to network dynamics in neurological and psychiatric diseases.

“We will be unable to develop innovative therapies for widespread neurological and psychiatric diseases until we understand neuronal functions on every level of complexity,” Andreas K. Engel, PhD, director of the Institute for Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology at the University Hospital of Hamburg-Eppendorf, president of the DGKN, and congress president, said during an online press conference.
 

Characterizing states of consciousness

For more than 30 years, it has been known that neuronal signals in the brain are dynamically coupled. Despite intensive research, the functional significance of this coupling on information processing is still largely unknown.

Neuroimaging methods such as electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and electrophysiological examinations were used. Model calculations of the data suggest that dynamic couplings of signals in the cortex play a crucial role in memory performance, thinking processes, and developing perception, among other things.

It has already been shown that the network dynamics of neuronal signals could possibly characterize states of consciousness. Neuronal signals and coupling patterns differ significantly between healthy individuals in a waking state and those who are asleep, under general anesthetic, or in a vegetative state. In Dr. Engel’s view, it may be possible in the future for machine learning algorithms to be used to classify states of consciousness.
 

Changes in brain activity as a biomarker?

The differences in the dynamics of neuronal signals between healthy individuals and patients with psychiatric diseases such as schizophrenia appear much more important for clinical practice. “The characteristic changes in brain activity in the primary auditory cortex could be considered a potential biomarker and used to predict the clinical course of psychiatric diseases, such as psychoses,” reported Dr. Engel.

The gamma-band activity in the auditory cortex could be a potential marker for schizophrenia. According to MEG examinations, the values are decreased both in people at increased risk of psychosis and experiencing first symptoms compared with controls.
 

Activation or inhibition of cerebral networks as new therapeutic approaches

New therapeutic approaches based on the activation or inhibition of cerebral networks are currently areas of intensive research. Close interdisciplinary collaboration between basic science researchers and clinicians is necessary, stressed Dr. Engel. The use of noninvasive brain stimulation is already within reach for the neurorehabilitation of stroke patients. “I am optimistic that in a few years brain stimulation will be established as an integral element of stroke therapy,” said Christian Grefkes-Hermann, MD, PhD, director of the department of neurology at University Hospital of Frankfurt and first vice president of the DGKN.

Despite great advances in acute stroke therapy, many patients must endure permanent deficits in their everyday life, he said. According to Dr. Grefkes-Hermann, rehabilitation procedures often have a dissatisfactory effect, and results greatly vary. He hopes that in the future it may be possible to personalize therapy by using network patterns, thereby improving results.

The aim is to reorganize areas of the brain in which the network activity has been disrupted following a stroke using targeted transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). “The most important factor for functional recovery after a stroke is neuronal reorganization,” said Dr. Grefkes-Hermann. With the new methods of neurorehabilitation, network-connectivity disruptions, which are associated with motor function deficits, are first visualized using functional MRI (fMRI).

The imaging or the EEG makes visible the area of the brain that may benefit most from neurostimulation. Subsequently, nerve cells in this region may be precisely stimulated with TMS. Because the healthy hemisphere of the brain is usually overactive after a stroke, there are simultaneous attempts to inhibit the contralesional motor cortex.

Initial results are hopeful. In the initial period after a stroke, TMS can be used in some patients to correct pathological connectivities and thereby improve motor deficits, reported Dr. Grefkes-Hermann. The fMRI pattern can also be used to predict recovery and intervention effects on an individual basis. A phase 3 trial is currently underway of 150 patients who have had a stroke and aims to study the efficacy of the new procedure.
 

Combined TMS and EEG

With the combination of TMS and the simultaneous measurement of EEG activity, a further development of fMRI connectivity analyses is currently being tested. Dr. Grefkes-Hermann believes that this procedure, which is more cost-effective, has higher temporal resolution, can be used directly at the bedside, and has more potential for personalized therapy planning in clinical practice.

The TMS-EEG procedure also makes it possible to predict the risk of post-stroke delirium, which affects around 30% of stroke patients and greatly worsens the outcome, underlined Ulf Ziemann, MD, medical director of the department of neurology at Tübingen (Germany) University Hospital. In a study of 33 patients with acute stroke, the onset of post-stroke delirium could be predicted with a high degree of accuracy by using the TMS-EEG procedure no later than 48 hours after the event.

Other promising, noninvasive methods for neuron activation mentioned by Dr. Ziemann include transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (tFUS) with low intensity, which is being studied for chronic pain, dementia, epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, and depression, as well as transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS), which is also based on ultrasound. In a pilot study of 35 patients with Alzheimer’s disease, use of TPS within 3 months had positive effects on cognition. However, the study was not controlled and therefore further assessments are needed.
 

Custom deep brain stimulation

For deep brain stimulation (DBS), an established therapy for Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders, the aim is individualized, symptom-related network stimulation, reported Andrea Kühn, MD, head of the movement disorders and neuromodulation section in the department of neurology at Charité University Hospital Berlin.

At the panregional collaborative research center ReTune, which has been supported for 4 years now by €10 million from the German Research Foundation (DFG), imaging and computer-assisted programming algorithms are being developed for DBS. They will greatly simplify the time-consuming standard procedure for the best possible setting of the stimulation parameters, which requires a hospital stay of several days.

A randomized crossover study of 35 patients with Parkinson’s disease proved the equivalence of the fast, algorithm-assisted DBS for the control of motor symptoms compared with standard procedures.

The new methods have the potential to considerably improve the outcome of patients with neurological and psychiatric diseases, according to scientists. However, the positive data must still be validated in further studies.
 

This article was translated from Medscape’s German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Around 86 billion nerve cells in our brain work together in complex dynamic networks to control almost every sensorimotor and cognitive process. However, the way in which the information is processed in the different regions of the brain is still unclear. There are already some promising approaches to specifically influence the dynamics of neuronal networks to treat neurological and psychiatric diseases.

One of the main topics at the Congress for Clinical Neuroscience of the German Society for Clinical Neurophysiology and Functional Neuroimaging (DGKN), recently held in Hamburg, Germany, was the dynamics of cerebral networks in sensorimotor and cognitive processes, as well as disruptions to network dynamics in neurological and psychiatric diseases.

“We will be unable to develop innovative therapies for widespread neurological and psychiatric diseases until we understand neuronal functions on every level of complexity,” Andreas K. Engel, PhD, director of the Institute for Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology at the University Hospital of Hamburg-Eppendorf, president of the DGKN, and congress president, said during an online press conference.
 

Characterizing states of consciousness

For more than 30 years, it has been known that neuronal signals in the brain are dynamically coupled. Despite intensive research, the functional significance of this coupling on information processing is still largely unknown.

Neuroimaging methods such as electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and electrophysiological examinations were used. Model calculations of the data suggest that dynamic couplings of signals in the cortex play a crucial role in memory performance, thinking processes, and developing perception, among other things.

It has already been shown that the network dynamics of neuronal signals could possibly characterize states of consciousness. Neuronal signals and coupling patterns differ significantly between healthy individuals in a waking state and those who are asleep, under general anesthetic, or in a vegetative state. In Dr. Engel’s view, it may be possible in the future for machine learning algorithms to be used to classify states of consciousness.
 

Changes in brain activity as a biomarker?

The differences in the dynamics of neuronal signals between healthy individuals and patients with psychiatric diseases such as schizophrenia appear much more important for clinical practice. “The characteristic changes in brain activity in the primary auditory cortex could be considered a potential biomarker and used to predict the clinical course of psychiatric diseases, such as psychoses,” reported Dr. Engel.

The gamma-band activity in the auditory cortex could be a potential marker for schizophrenia. According to MEG examinations, the values are decreased both in people at increased risk of psychosis and experiencing first symptoms compared with controls.
 

Activation or inhibition of cerebral networks as new therapeutic approaches

New therapeutic approaches based on the activation or inhibition of cerebral networks are currently areas of intensive research. Close interdisciplinary collaboration between basic science researchers and clinicians is necessary, stressed Dr. Engel. The use of noninvasive brain stimulation is already within reach for the neurorehabilitation of stroke patients. “I am optimistic that in a few years brain stimulation will be established as an integral element of stroke therapy,” said Christian Grefkes-Hermann, MD, PhD, director of the department of neurology at University Hospital of Frankfurt and first vice president of the DGKN.

Despite great advances in acute stroke therapy, many patients must endure permanent deficits in their everyday life, he said. According to Dr. Grefkes-Hermann, rehabilitation procedures often have a dissatisfactory effect, and results greatly vary. He hopes that in the future it may be possible to personalize therapy by using network patterns, thereby improving results.

The aim is to reorganize areas of the brain in which the network activity has been disrupted following a stroke using targeted transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). “The most important factor for functional recovery after a stroke is neuronal reorganization,” said Dr. Grefkes-Hermann. With the new methods of neurorehabilitation, network-connectivity disruptions, which are associated with motor function deficits, are first visualized using functional MRI (fMRI).

The imaging or the EEG makes visible the area of the brain that may benefit most from neurostimulation. Subsequently, nerve cells in this region may be precisely stimulated with TMS. Because the healthy hemisphere of the brain is usually overactive after a stroke, there are simultaneous attempts to inhibit the contralesional motor cortex.

Initial results are hopeful. In the initial period after a stroke, TMS can be used in some patients to correct pathological connectivities and thereby improve motor deficits, reported Dr. Grefkes-Hermann. The fMRI pattern can also be used to predict recovery and intervention effects on an individual basis. A phase 3 trial is currently underway of 150 patients who have had a stroke and aims to study the efficacy of the new procedure.
 

Combined TMS and EEG

With the combination of TMS and the simultaneous measurement of EEG activity, a further development of fMRI connectivity analyses is currently being tested. Dr. Grefkes-Hermann believes that this procedure, which is more cost-effective, has higher temporal resolution, can be used directly at the bedside, and has more potential for personalized therapy planning in clinical practice.

The TMS-EEG procedure also makes it possible to predict the risk of post-stroke delirium, which affects around 30% of stroke patients and greatly worsens the outcome, underlined Ulf Ziemann, MD, medical director of the department of neurology at Tübingen (Germany) University Hospital. In a study of 33 patients with acute stroke, the onset of post-stroke delirium could be predicted with a high degree of accuracy by using the TMS-EEG procedure no later than 48 hours after the event.

Other promising, noninvasive methods for neuron activation mentioned by Dr. Ziemann include transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (tFUS) with low intensity, which is being studied for chronic pain, dementia, epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, and depression, as well as transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS), which is also based on ultrasound. In a pilot study of 35 patients with Alzheimer’s disease, use of TPS within 3 months had positive effects on cognition. However, the study was not controlled and therefore further assessments are needed.
 

Custom deep brain stimulation

For deep brain stimulation (DBS), an established therapy for Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders, the aim is individualized, symptom-related network stimulation, reported Andrea Kühn, MD, head of the movement disorders and neuromodulation section in the department of neurology at Charité University Hospital Berlin.

At the panregional collaborative research center ReTune, which has been supported for 4 years now by €10 million from the German Research Foundation (DFG), imaging and computer-assisted programming algorithms are being developed for DBS. They will greatly simplify the time-consuming standard procedure for the best possible setting of the stimulation parameters, which requires a hospital stay of several days.

A randomized crossover study of 35 patients with Parkinson’s disease proved the equivalence of the fast, algorithm-assisted DBS for the control of motor symptoms compared with standard procedures.

The new methods have the potential to considerably improve the outcome of patients with neurological and psychiatric diseases, according to scientists. However, the positive data must still be validated in further studies.
 

This article was translated from Medscape’s German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite decades of research, there’s still considerable uncertainty about the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesics for the treatment of acute low back pain, new research shows.

Higher-quality randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are needed, study investigator Michael A. Wewege, PhD candidate, research fellow, University of New South Wales and Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, said in an interview.

“Until then, doctors should use caution when prescribing analgesic medicines for adults with nonspecific acute low back pain. They should use this new evidence in line with their own expertise and the patient sitting in front of them when making any decision about a medication,” he added.

The findings were published online  in the BMJ. 
 

Poor quality evidence

Analgesics such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and codeine are widely used to treat nonspecific low-back pain, which is defined as pain lasting less than 6 weeks, but evidence for the comparative efficacy of these agents is limited.

To fill this knowledge gap, the researchers conducted a systematic review and analysis of controlled trials comparing analgesics with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment in patients with acute, nonspecific low back pain.

The review involved 98 randomized controlled trials that included 15,134 adults (49% women) aged 30-60 years with pain duration ranging from 24 hours to 21 days. The median baseline pain intensity was 65 on a pain scale of 0-100.

Of the included trials, 39% were placebo controlled, 67% masked both participants and clinicians, and 41% reported industry sponsorship.

The studies compared an analgesic medicine with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment comprised of usual care or being placed on a wait list.

Study medications, which had to be approved in the United States, Europe, or Australia, included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and corticosteroids.

These drugs were administered systemically as a single drug or in combination formulations, at any dose.

Researchers used a network meta-analysis, which combines direct and indirect information across a network of randomized clinical trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments.

The primary outcomes were reductions in low back pain intensity (measured with a visual analogue scale), numerical rating scale or another ordinal scale, and safety as indicated by the number of participants who had any adverse event.

Investigators found several medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, though with low or very low confidence.

Low or very low confidence was found for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference, −26.1; 95% confidence interval, −34.0 to −18.2), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (mean difference, −26.1; 95% CI, −38.5 to −13.6), pregabalin (mean difference, −24.7; 95% CI, −34.6 to −14.7), and 14 other medicines, compared with placebo, the researchers report.

In addition, they found low or very low confidence for no difference between the effects of several of these medications.

Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), baclofen (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4), and paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), compared with placebo, the investigators add.

“These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events, compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes,” the researchers note.

The review suggested 14 additional comparisons favored the treatment over placebo, all with very low confidence except for one with low confidence.

In the 68 trials that included the number of participants reporting an adverse event, there was moderate confidence for increased adverse events with the opioid tramadol (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), and low confidence for baclofen (RR, 2.3; 1.5-3.4), compared with placebo.

The review also uncovered moderate to low confidence for secondary outcomes, which included low back-specific function, serious adverse events, and acceptability (number of participants who dropped out).
 

Unexpected findings

The new results were somewhat unexpected, said Mr. Wewege.

“When we set out to do this review, we envisioned the evidence would be a lot more comprehensive. We didn’t think it would be so disconnected and there would be so few trials looking at the different comparisons that would lead us to have low confidence in most of the findings.”

Various factors contributed to this low confidence, he said. One was the risk of bias – about 90% of trials had some concerns or high risk of bias. Another factor was the heterogeneity in effect estimates.

Most of the evidence is based on studies comparing different analgesics to placebo, Mr. Wewege noted. The lack of head-to-head drug comparisons is because “the easiest way to get a drug approved is just to demonstrate it’s better than placebo,” he said.

In addition to these new findings, clinicians should consider a medication’s availability, their own expertise, and patient preferences when selecting an analgesic, said Mr. Wewege. He noted most patients with acute low back pain get better within a few weeks without any intervention.

“Patients should be reassured that things will heal naturally and that they are not going to be in pain forever,” he said.
 

Determining optimal treatment is key

Chris Gilligan, MD, associate chief medical officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said determining which medications are optimal is “key,” as acute low back pain is very common and analgesics are used frequently.

The new review does provide information on which medications have the strongest evidence for pain reduction, said Dr. Gilligan. “On the one hand, it directionally points you towards certain medications, and even certain classes of medication, for comparative effectiveness.”

However, he said, the confidence for this effectiveness is low or very low, “so I wouldn’t overweight it.”

The data on adverse effects, where the confidence is mostly moderate to low, might have more of an influence on prescribing, he said.

“For example, there’s some indication tramadol may be more closely associated with adverse events in patients with acute low back pain and that would add to our caution about using tramadol; it’s not that we would never use it, but [we]would take that into account.”

Dr. Gilligan agrees clinicians should be cautious about prescribing analgesics for low back pain. One reason for being conservative in terms of treatments, he noted, is that “acute low back pain has a very favorable natural history.”

While clinical practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic therapies as first- and second-line treatment for acute, nonspecific low back pain, Dr. Gilligan noted that as with drugs, evidence for nondrug therapies also has low or very low confidence.

The study received funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English.

Mr. Wewege was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. Dr. Gilligan reports that he conducts clinical trials with companies and groups, including the National Institutes of Health related to medications, devices, and procedures for pain.

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

Despite decades of research, there’s still considerable uncertainty about the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesics for the treatment of acute low back pain, new research shows.

Higher-quality randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are needed, study investigator Michael A. Wewege, PhD candidate, research fellow, University of New South Wales and Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, said in an interview.

“Until then, doctors should use caution when prescribing analgesic medicines for adults with nonspecific acute low back pain. They should use this new evidence in line with their own expertise and the patient sitting in front of them when making any decision about a medication,” he added.

The findings were published online  in the BMJ. 
 

Poor quality evidence

Analgesics such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and codeine are widely used to treat nonspecific low-back pain, which is defined as pain lasting less than 6 weeks, but evidence for the comparative efficacy of these agents is limited.

To fill this knowledge gap, the researchers conducted a systematic review and analysis of controlled trials comparing analgesics with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment in patients with acute, nonspecific low back pain.

The review involved 98 randomized controlled trials that included 15,134 adults (49% women) aged 30-60 years with pain duration ranging from 24 hours to 21 days. The median baseline pain intensity was 65 on a pain scale of 0-100.

Of the included trials, 39% were placebo controlled, 67% masked both participants and clinicians, and 41% reported industry sponsorship.

The studies compared an analgesic medicine with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment comprised of usual care or being placed on a wait list.

Study medications, which had to be approved in the United States, Europe, or Australia, included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and corticosteroids.

These drugs were administered systemically as a single drug or in combination formulations, at any dose.

Researchers used a network meta-analysis, which combines direct and indirect information across a network of randomized clinical trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments.

The primary outcomes were reductions in low back pain intensity (measured with a visual analogue scale), numerical rating scale or another ordinal scale, and safety as indicated by the number of participants who had any adverse event.

Investigators found several medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, though with low or very low confidence.

Low or very low confidence was found for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference, −26.1; 95% confidence interval, −34.0 to −18.2), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (mean difference, −26.1; 95% CI, −38.5 to −13.6), pregabalin (mean difference, −24.7; 95% CI, −34.6 to −14.7), and 14 other medicines, compared with placebo, the researchers report.

In addition, they found low or very low confidence for no difference between the effects of several of these medications.

Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), baclofen (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4), and paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), compared with placebo, the investigators add.

“These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events, compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes,” the researchers note.

The review suggested 14 additional comparisons favored the treatment over placebo, all with very low confidence except for one with low confidence.

In the 68 trials that included the number of participants reporting an adverse event, there was moderate confidence for increased adverse events with the opioid tramadol (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), and low confidence for baclofen (RR, 2.3; 1.5-3.4), compared with placebo.

The review also uncovered moderate to low confidence for secondary outcomes, which included low back-specific function, serious adverse events, and acceptability (number of participants who dropped out).
 

Unexpected findings

The new results were somewhat unexpected, said Mr. Wewege.

“When we set out to do this review, we envisioned the evidence would be a lot more comprehensive. We didn’t think it would be so disconnected and there would be so few trials looking at the different comparisons that would lead us to have low confidence in most of the findings.”

Various factors contributed to this low confidence, he said. One was the risk of bias – about 90% of trials had some concerns or high risk of bias. Another factor was the heterogeneity in effect estimates.

Most of the evidence is based on studies comparing different analgesics to placebo, Mr. Wewege noted. The lack of head-to-head drug comparisons is because “the easiest way to get a drug approved is just to demonstrate it’s better than placebo,” he said.

In addition to these new findings, clinicians should consider a medication’s availability, their own expertise, and patient preferences when selecting an analgesic, said Mr. Wewege. He noted most patients with acute low back pain get better within a few weeks without any intervention.

“Patients should be reassured that things will heal naturally and that they are not going to be in pain forever,” he said.
 

Determining optimal treatment is key

Chris Gilligan, MD, associate chief medical officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said determining which medications are optimal is “key,” as acute low back pain is very common and analgesics are used frequently.

The new review does provide information on which medications have the strongest evidence for pain reduction, said Dr. Gilligan. “On the one hand, it directionally points you towards certain medications, and even certain classes of medication, for comparative effectiveness.”

However, he said, the confidence for this effectiveness is low or very low, “so I wouldn’t overweight it.”

The data on adverse effects, where the confidence is mostly moderate to low, might have more of an influence on prescribing, he said.

“For example, there’s some indication tramadol may be more closely associated with adverse events in patients with acute low back pain and that would add to our caution about using tramadol; it’s not that we would never use it, but [we]would take that into account.”

Dr. Gilligan agrees clinicians should be cautious about prescribing analgesics for low back pain. One reason for being conservative in terms of treatments, he noted, is that “acute low back pain has a very favorable natural history.”

While clinical practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic therapies as first- and second-line treatment for acute, nonspecific low back pain, Dr. Gilligan noted that as with drugs, evidence for nondrug therapies also has low or very low confidence.

The study received funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English.

Mr. Wewege was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. Dr. Gilligan reports that he conducts clinical trials with companies and groups, including the National Institutes of Health related to medications, devices, and procedures for pain.

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

Despite decades of research, there’s still considerable uncertainty about the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesics for the treatment of acute low back pain, new research shows.

Higher-quality randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are needed, study investigator Michael A. Wewege, PhD candidate, research fellow, University of New South Wales and Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, said in an interview.

“Until then, doctors should use caution when prescribing analgesic medicines for adults with nonspecific acute low back pain. They should use this new evidence in line with their own expertise and the patient sitting in front of them when making any decision about a medication,” he added.

The findings were published online  in the BMJ. 
 

Poor quality evidence

Analgesics such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and codeine are widely used to treat nonspecific low-back pain, which is defined as pain lasting less than 6 weeks, but evidence for the comparative efficacy of these agents is limited.

To fill this knowledge gap, the researchers conducted a systematic review and analysis of controlled trials comparing analgesics with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment in patients with acute, nonspecific low back pain.

The review involved 98 randomized controlled trials that included 15,134 adults (49% women) aged 30-60 years with pain duration ranging from 24 hours to 21 days. The median baseline pain intensity was 65 on a pain scale of 0-100.

Of the included trials, 39% were placebo controlled, 67% masked both participants and clinicians, and 41% reported industry sponsorship.

The studies compared an analgesic medicine with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment comprised of usual care or being placed on a wait list.

Study medications, which had to be approved in the United States, Europe, or Australia, included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and corticosteroids.

These drugs were administered systemically as a single drug or in combination formulations, at any dose.

Researchers used a network meta-analysis, which combines direct and indirect information across a network of randomized clinical trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments.

The primary outcomes were reductions in low back pain intensity (measured with a visual analogue scale), numerical rating scale or another ordinal scale, and safety as indicated by the number of participants who had any adverse event.

Investigators found several medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, though with low or very low confidence.

Low or very low confidence was found for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference, −26.1; 95% confidence interval, −34.0 to −18.2), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (mean difference, −26.1; 95% CI, −38.5 to −13.6), pregabalin (mean difference, −24.7; 95% CI, −34.6 to −14.7), and 14 other medicines, compared with placebo, the researchers report.

In addition, they found low or very low confidence for no difference between the effects of several of these medications.

Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), baclofen (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4), and paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), compared with placebo, the investigators add.

“These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events, compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes,” the researchers note.

The review suggested 14 additional comparisons favored the treatment over placebo, all with very low confidence except for one with low confidence.

In the 68 trials that included the number of participants reporting an adverse event, there was moderate confidence for increased adverse events with the opioid tramadol (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), and low confidence for baclofen (RR, 2.3; 1.5-3.4), compared with placebo.

The review also uncovered moderate to low confidence for secondary outcomes, which included low back-specific function, serious adverse events, and acceptability (number of participants who dropped out).
 

Unexpected findings

The new results were somewhat unexpected, said Mr. Wewege.

“When we set out to do this review, we envisioned the evidence would be a lot more comprehensive. We didn’t think it would be so disconnected and there would be so few trials looking at the different comparisons that would lead us to have low confidence in most of the findings.”

Various factors contributed to this low confidence, he said. One was the risk of bias – about 90% of trials had some concerns or high risk of bias. Another factor was the heterogeneity in effect estimates.

Most of the evidence is based on studies comparing different analgesics to placebo, Mr. Wewege noted. The lack of head-to-head drug comparisons is because “the easiest way to get a drug approved is just to demonstrate it’s better than placebo,” he said.

In addition to these new findings, clinicians should consider a medication’s availability, their own expertise, and patient preferences when selecting an analgesic, said Mr. Wewege. He noted most patients with acute low back pain get better within a few weeks without any intervention.

“Patients should be reassured that things will heal naturally and that they are not going to be in pain forever,” he said.
 

Determining optimal treatment is key

Chris Gilligan, MD, associate chief medical officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said determining which medications are optimal is “key,” as acute low back pain is very common and analgesics are used frequently.

The new review does provide information on which medications have the strongest evidence for pain reduction, said Dr. Gilligan. “On the one hand, it directionally points you towards certain medications, and even certain classes of medication, for comparative effectiveness.”

However, he said, the confidence for this effectiveness is low or very low, “so I wouldn’t overweight it.”

The data on adverse effects, where the confidence is mostly moderate to low, might have more of an influence on prescribing, he said.

“For example, there’s some indication tramadol may be more closely associated with adverse events in patients with acute low back pain and that would add to our caution about using tramadol; it’s not that we would never use it, but [we]would take that into account.”

Dr. Gilligan agrees clinicians should be cautious about prescribing analgesics for low back pain. One reason for being conservative in terms of treatments, he noted, is that “acute low back pain has a very favorable natural history.”

While clinical practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic therapies as first- and second-line treatment for acute, nonspecific low back pain, Dr. Gilligan noted that as with drugs, evidence for nondrug therapies also has low or very low confidence.

The study received funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English.

Mr. Wewege was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. Dr. Gilligan reports that he conducts clinical trials with companies and groups, including the National Institutes of Health related to medications, devices, and procedures for pain.

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

Childhood autism rates have ticked up once again, according to the latest data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to the CDC, 1 in 36 (2.8%) 8-year-old children have been identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) – up from the previous 2018 estimate of 1 in 44 (2.3%).

The updated data come from 11 communities in the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) network and were published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

A separate report in the MMWR on 4-year-old children in the same 11 communities highlights the impact of COVID-19, showing disruptions in progress in early autism detection.

In the early months of the pandemic, 4-year-old children were less likely to have an evaluation or be identified with ASD than 8-year-old children when they were the same age. This coincides with interruptions in childcare and health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Disruptions due to the pandemic in the timely evaluation of children and delays in connecting children to the services and support they need could have long-lasting effects,” Karen Remley, MD, director of CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in a statement.

“The data in this report can help communities better understand how the pandemic impacted early identification of autism in young children and anticipate future needs as these children get older,” Dr. Remley noted.
 

Shifting demographics

The latest data also show that ASD prevalence among Asian, Black, and Hispanic children was at least 30% higher in 2020 than in 2018, and ASD prevalence among White children was 14.6% higher than in 2018.

For the first time, according to the CDC, the percentage of 8-year-old Asian/Pacific Islander (3.3%), Hispanic (3.2%) and Black (2.9%) children identified with autism was higher than the percentage of 8-year-old White children (2.4%).

This is the opposite of racial and ethnic differences seen in previous ADDM reports for 8-year-olds. These shifts may reflect improved screening, awareness, and access to services among historically underserved groups, the CDC said.

Disparities for co-occurring intellectual disability have also persisted, with a higher percentage of Black children with autism identified with intellectual disability compared with White, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children with autism. These differences could relate in part to access to services that diagnose and support children with autism, the CDC noted.

Overall, autism prevalence within the 11 ADDM communities was nearly four times higher for boys than girls. However, it’s the first time that the prevalence of autism among 8-year-old girls has topped 1%.
 

Community differences

Autism prevalence in the 11 ADDM communities ranged from 1 in 43 (2.3%) children in Maryland to 1 in 22 (4.5%) in California – variations that could be due to how communities identify children with autism.

This variability affords an opportunity to compare local policies and models for delivering diagnostic and interventional services that could enhance autism identification and provide more comprehensive support to people with autism, the CDC said.
 

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

Childhood autism rates have ticked up once again, according to the latest data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to the CDC, 1 in 36 (2.8%) 8-year-old children have been identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) – up from the previous 2018 estimate of 1 in 44 (2.3%).

The updated data come from 11 communities in the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) network and were published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

A separate report in the MMWR on 4-year-old children in the same 11 communities highlights the impact of COVID-19, showing disruptions in progress in early autism detection.

In the early months of the pandemic, 4-year-old children were less likely to have an evaluation or be identified with ASD than 8-year-old children when they were the same age. This coincides with interruptions in childcare and health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Disruptions due to the pandemic in the timely evaluation of children and delays in connecting children to the services and support they need could have long-lasting effects,” Karen Remley, MD, director of CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in a statement.

“The data in this report can help communities better understand how the pandemic impacted early identification of autism in young children and anticipate future needs as these children get older,” Dr. Remley noted.
 

Shifting demographics

The latest data also show that ASD prevalence among Asian, Black, and Hispanic children was at least 30% higher in 2020 than in 2018, and ASD prevalence among White children was 14.6% higher than in 2018.

For the first time, according to the CDC, the percentage of 8-year-old Asian/Pacific Islander (3.3%), Hispanic (3.2%) and Black (2.9%) children identified with autism was higher than the percentage of 8-year-old White children (2.4%).

This is the opposite of racial and ethnic differences seen in previous ADDM reports for 8-year-olds. These shifts may reflect improved screening, awareness, and access to services among historically underserved groups, the CDC said.

Disparities for co-occurring intellectual disability have also persisted, with a higher percentage of Black children with autism identified with intellectual disability compared with White, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children with autism. These differences could relate in part to access to services that diagnose and support children with autism, the CDC noted.

Overall, autism prevalence within the 11 ADDM communities was nearly four times higher for boys than girls. However, it’s the first time that the prevalence of autism among 8-year-old girls has topped 1%.
 

Community differences

Autism prevalence in the 11 ADDM communities ranged from 1 in 43 (2.3%) children in Maryland to 1 in 22 (4.5%) in California – variations that could be due to how communities identify children with autism.

This variability affords an opportunity to compare local policies and models for delivering diagnostic and interventional services that could enhance autism identification and provide more comprehensive support to people with autism, the CDC said.
 

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

Childhood autism rates have ticked up once again, according to the latest data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to the CDC, 1 in 36 (2.8%) 8-year-old children have been identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) – up from the previous 2018 estimate of 1 in 44 (2.3%).

The updated data come from 11 communities in the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) network and were published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

A separate report in the MMWR on 4-year-old children in the same 11 communities highlights the impact of COVID-19, showing disruptions in progress in early autism detection.

In the early months of the pandemic, 4-year-old children were less likely to have an evaluation or be identified with ASD than 8-year-old children when they were the same age. This coincides with interruptions in childcare and health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Disruptions due to the pandemic in the timely evaluation of children and delays in connecting children to the services and support they need could have long-lasting effects,” Karen Remley, MD, director of CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in a statement.

“The data in this report can help communities better understand how the pandemic impacted early identification of autism in young children and anticipate future needs as these children get older,” Dr. Remley noted.
 

Shifting demographics

The latest data also show that ASD prevalence among Asian, Black, and Hispanic children was at least 30% higher in 2020 than in 2018, and ASD prevalence among White children was 14.6% higher than in 2018.

For the first time, according to the CDC, the percentage of 8-year-old Asian/Pacific Islander (3.3%), Hispanic (3.2%) and Black (2.9%) children identified with autism was higher than the percentage of 8-year-old White children (2.4%).

This is the opposite of racial and ethnic differences seen in previous ADDM reports for 8-year-olds. These shifts may reflect improved screening, awareness, and access to services among historically underserved groups, the CDC said.

Disparities for co-occurring intellectual disability have also persisted, with a higher percentage of Black children with autism identified with intellectual disability compared with White, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children with autism. These differences could relate in part to access to services that diagnose and support children with autism, the CDC noted.

Overall, autism prevalence within the 11 ADDM communities was nearly four times higher for boys than girls. However, it’s the first time that the prevalence of autism among 8-year-old girls has topped 1%.
 

Community differences

Autism prevalence in the 11 ADDM communities ranged from 1 in 43 (2.3%) children in Maryland to 1 in 22 (4.5%) in California – variations that could be due to how communities identify children with autism.

This variability affords an opportunity to compare local policies and models for delivering diagnostic and interventional services that could enhance autism identification and provide more comprehensive support to people with autism, the CDC said.
 

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

A doctor and one of Idaho’s premier emergency medicine groups must pay millions of dollars to a stroke patient and his wife in what is being called the second-largest medical malpractice award in the state’s history, according to a report in the Idaho Capital Sun.

The suit, which took nearly 5 years after filing to wend its way through the courts, stems from an incident that took place in the early morning of March 29, 2016. An Ada County resident peered into the family bathroom and discovered that her husband, Carl B. Stiefel, lay on the floor confused and vomiting and complaining of a severe headache. Recently, the man had experienced several of these same symptoms, plus sinus congestion, dizziness, and tinnitus.

As Mr. Stiefel’s confusion worsened, his wife called for an ambulance, which arrived at the local hospital emergency department (ED) at 4:12 AM. Within approximately 11 minutes, the patient was examined by a doctor and later underwent a cranial CT scan, which a second doctor said showed “no intracranial process.”

Mr. Stiefel’s condition improved somewhat, although his dizziness persisted, leaving him still unable to walk. At this point, his primary ED doctor admitted him to the hospital for “benign positional vertigo.” The doctor also joined colleagues in suggesting that the patient might well be a candidate for an MRI, just in case his condition failed to improve over the next few hours.

But the transfer from the ED to the main hospital reportedly took at least 3 hours, during which time Mr. Stiefel’s condition deteriorated. Once admitted, he was observed by a healthcare provider — the news report doesn’t indicate precisely who — to be “delirious without meaningful interaction.” At least 4 hours would pass before the patient was seen by still another doctor, as the plaintiffs later claimed.

The patient remained disoriented and restless as the day unfolded. The MRI contemplated earlier was finally ordered, but the scan wasn’t available for several hours, according to nursing notes cited by the plaintiffs in their lawsuit.

Finally, the scan was administered at about 5:50 PM, almost 12 hours since Mr. Stiefel had first arrived at the ED. It showed that he had a torn artery in his neck and was experiencing a stroke. This was, clearly, a very different diagnosis from the one that his admitting doctor had entered into his notes.

A surgeon operated to repair the arterial tear, but the patient’s condition continued to worsen. Over the next 3 weeks, Mr. Stiefel went from the hospital to a local rehab facility, and back to the hospital with bacterial meningitis. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with “an irreparable brain injury,” which ultimately left him disabled and unable to work.

At this point, he and his wife sued a broad range of defendants — a radiology group, individual healthcare providers employed by the hospital, the primary ED physician, and that doctor’s emergency medicine group. In the nearly 5 intervening years, each of the named defendants settled, except the ED doctor and the emergency medicine group.

The two remaining defendants vigorously contested the claims against them, denying “any and all allegations of responsibility and liability” and contending that the patient’s injuries resulted from unforeseen complications rather than the care that had been administered.

The Ada County jury disagreed, however. It found that the primary ED doctor — and by extension the group to which the doctor belonged — did in fact negligently and recklessly fail to meet the proper standard of care, leading directly to the patient’s life-altering injuries.

For this failure, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $13.5 million, well over the state’s current inflation-adjusted cap of $400,000. (To date, Idaho’s largest med-mal award is nearly $30 million, handed down more than 20 years ago.)

At press time, there was no word of an appeal. 
 

Man sues dentist, ends up changing state medical malpractice law

In a surprise move, the Connecticut Supreme Court in mid-February reversed its own precedent regarding a 2005 law requiring certain pre-litigation steps be taken before state residents are permitted to file a medical malpractice claim, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

In its 2011 review of that earlier law — passed to ensure that complainants had a reasonable basis for their claims — the high court went the legislature one better. It held that state courts had no “personal jurisdiction” in adjudicating malpractice claims in the absence of required supporting documents — specifically, a proper certificate and opinion letter from “a similar healthcare provider.”

For the past 12 years, this meant that any suit lacking the proper documents could not only be halted but dismissed with prejudice, meaning that such a case couldn’t be refiled.

That interpretation of the law was eventually challenged, however, by a Connecticut man who sued his dentist. Filed in 2018, the suit alleged that, during a root canal, the dentist had failed to properly diagnose and treat his patient’s dental abscess, which ultimately required surgery.

Complying with what he regarded as state law, the man attached a letter of opinion to his complaint, which testified to the merits of his claim. But, in a twist with significant consequences, the letter was written by an endodontist, not a general dentist. In response, the dentist’s attorneys submitted a motion to dismiss to the trial court, arguing that the plaintiff had breached the “similar provider” provision and that therefore the opinion letter was defective and the entire suit should be dismissed.

The trial court agreed — and the Connecticut Appellate Court went on to affirm the lower-court ruling. The case might have ended there, but the plaintiff appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which agreed to review the appellate court finding. 

In a 6-0 decision, the high court looked back on its 2011 interpretation of the med-mal statute, which in the intervening years had given rise to “a body of case law.” The problem with that body of law, the justices argued, was that it had “imposed substantially greater burdens on plaintiffs than the legislature intended” — and it did so “by allowing potentially curable, technical, pre-litigation defects to defeat otherwise meritorious malpractice actions, sometimes after several years of litigation.”

In short, said the justices, there was nothing in the original statute that required a court to dismiss a suit once it found a letter of opinion to be deficient. This was a “curable” defect, one that shouldn’t be allowed to derail an otherwise meritorious claim.

As for the case that prompted the high court’s latest review — that is, the Connecticut man’s suit against his dentist — the justices found that the appellate court had also erred when it tossed out the endodontist’s opinion letter. Technically, the dentist might not have been an endodontist, said the justices, but he had in fact practiced in the field during the course of a long career, so close enough.

The justices kicked the case back to the trial court, with instructions that it deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
 

Stakeholders divided over new awards cap

Last month, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law that limits the amount of noneconomic damages a successful med-mal plaintiff can collect, explains a story posted on Radio Iowa, among other news sites.

Under the new law, the limit for suits involving hospitals is capped at $2 million — while those involving all other healthcare providers are capped at $1 million. Beginning in 2028, those caps will be adjusted annually for inflation by 2.1%.

“When mistakes happen, Iowans deserve compensation, but arbitrary multimillion-dollar awards do more than that,” said Gov. Reynolds. “They act as a tax on all Iowans by raising the cost of care. They drive medical clinics out of business and medical students out of state.”

The CEO of Knoxville Hospital and Clinics — a well-known regional provider — agreed, saying that the new law helped to make Iowa “a more attractive place to practice medicine.”

But most Democrats in the GOP-controlled legislature — and 16 Republicans — voted against the legislation. For her part, House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said there was absolutely no evidence that states with caps fared any better with medical workforce shortages than states without caps.
 

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

A doctor and one of Idaho’s premier emergency medicine groups must pay millions of dollars to a stroke patient and his wife in what is being called the second-largest medical malpractice award in the state’s history, according to a report in the Idaho Capital Sun.

The suit, which took nearly 5 years after filing to wend its way through the courts, stems from an incident that took place in the early morning of March 29, 2016. An Ada County resident peered into the family bathroom and discovered that her husband, Carl B. Stiefel, lay on the floor confused and vomiting and complaining of a severe headache. Recently, the man had experienced several of these same symptoms, plus sinus congestion, dizziness, and tinnitus.

As Mr. Stiefel’s confusion worsened, his wife called for an ambulance, which arrived at the local hospital emergency department (ED) at 4:12 AM. Within approximately 11 minutes, the patient was examined by a doctor and later underwent a cranial CT scan, which a second doctor said showed “no intracranial process.”

Mr. Stiefel’s condition improved somewhat, although his dizziness persisted, leaving him still unable to walk. At this point, his primary ED doctor admitted him to the hospital for “benign positional vertigo.” The doctor also joined colleagues in suggesting that the patient might well be a candidate for an MRI, just in case his condition failed to improve over the next few hours.

But the transfer from the ED to the main hospital reportedly took at least 3 hours, during which time Mr. Stiefel’s condition deteriorated. Once admitted, he was observed by a healthcare provider — the news report doesn’t indicate precisely who — to be “delirious without meaningful interaction.” At least 4 hours would pass before the patient was seen by still another doctor, as the plaintiffs later claimed.

The patient remained disoriented and restless as the day unfolded. The MRI contemplated earlier was finally ordered, but the scan wasn’t available for several hours, according to nursing notes cited by the plaintiffs in their lawsuit.

Finally, the scan was administered at about 5:50 PM, almost 12 hours since Mr. Stiefel had first arrived at the ED. It showed that he had a torn artery in his neck and was experiencing a stroke. This was, clearly, a very different diagnosis from the one that his admitting doctor had entered into his notes.

A surgeon operated to repair the arterial tear, but the patient’s condition continued to worsen. Over the next 3 weeks, Mr. Stiefel went from the hospital to a local rehab facility, and back to the hospital with bacterial meningitis. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with “an irreparable brain injury,” which ultimately left him disabled and unable to work.

At this point, he and his wife sued a broad range of defendants — a radiology group, individual healthcare providers employed by the hospital, the primary ED physician, and that doctor’s emergency medicine group. In the nearly 5 intervening years, each of the named defendants settled, except the ED doctor and the emergency medicine group.

The two remaining defendants vigorously contested the claims against them, denying “any and all allegations of responsibility and liability” and contending that the patient’s injuries resulted from unforeseen complications rather than the care that had been administered.

The Ada County jury disagreed, however. It found that the primary ED doctor — and by extension the group to which the doctor belonged — did in fact negligently and recklessly fail to meet the proper standard of care, leading directly to the patient’s life-altering injuries.

For this failure, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $13.5 million, well over the state’s current inflation-adjusted cap of $400,000. (To date, Idaho’s largest med-mal award is nearly $30 million, handed down more than 20 years ago.)

At press time, there was no word of an appeal. 
 

Man sues dentist, ends up changing state medical malpractice law

In a surprise move, the Connecticut Supreme Court in mid-February reversed its own precedent regarding a 2005 law requiring certain pre-litigation steps be taken before state residents are permitted to file a medical malpractice claim, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

In its 2011 review of that earlier law — passed to ensure that complainants had a reasonable basis for their claims — the high court went the legislature one better. It held that state courts had no “personal jurisdiction” in adjudicating malpractice claims in the absence of required supporting documents — specifically, a proper certificate and opinion letter from “a similar healthcare provider.”

For the past 12 years, this meant that any suit lacking the proper documents could not only be halted but dismissed with prejudice, meaning that such a case couldn’t be refiled.

That interpretation of the law was eventually challenged, however, by a Connecticut man who sued his dentist. Filed in 2018, the suit alleged that, during a root canal, the dentist had failed to properly diagnose and treat his patient’s dental abscess, which ultimately required surgery.

Complying with what he regarded as state law, the man attached a letter of opinion to his complaint, which testified to the merits of his claim. But, in a twist with significant consequences, the letter was written by an endodontist, not a general dentist. In response, the dentist’s attorneys submitted a motion to dismiss to the trial court, arguing that the plaintiff had breached the “similar provider” provision and that therefore the opinion letter was defective and the entire suit should be dismissed.

The trial court agreed — and the Connecticut Appellate Court went on to affirm the lower-court ruling. The case might have ended there, but the plaintiff appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which agreed to review the appellate court finding. 

In a 6-0 decision, the high court looked back on its 2011 interpretation of the med-mal statute, which in the intervening years had given rise to “a body of case law.” The problem with that body of law, the justices argued, was that it had “imposed substantially greater burdens on plaintiffs than the legislature intended” — and it did so “by allowing potentially curable, technical, pre-litigation defects to defeat otherwise meritorious malpractice actions, sometimes after several years of litigation.”

In short, said the justices, there was nothing in the original statute that required a court to dismiss a suit once it found a letter of opinion to be deficient. This was a “curable” defect, one that shouldn’t be allowed to derail an otherwise meritorious claim.

As for the case that prompted the high court’s latest review — that is, the Connecticut man’s suit against his dentist — the justices found that the appellate court had also erred when it tossed out the endodontist’s opinion letter. Technically, the dentist might not have been an endodontist, said the justices, but he had in fact practiced in the field during the course of a long career, so close enough.

The justices kicked the case back to the trial court, with instructions that it deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
 

Stakeholders divided over new awards cap

Last month, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law that limits the amount of noneconomic damages a successful med-mal plaintiff can collect, explains a story posted on Radio Iowa, among other news sites.

Under the new law, the limit for suits involving hospitals is capped at $2 million — while those involving all other healthcare providers are capped at $1 million. Beginning in 2028, those caps will be adjusted annually for inflation by 2.1%.

“When mistakes happen, Iowans deserve compensation, but arbitrary multimillion-dollar awards do more than that,” said Gov. Reynolds. “They act as a tax on all Iowans by raising the cost of care. They drive medical clinics out of business and medical students out of state.”

The CEO of Knoxville Hospital and Clinics — a well-known regional provider — agreed, saying that the new law helped to make Iowa “a more attractive place to practice medicine.”

But most Democrats in the GOP-controlled legislature — and 16 Republicans — voted against the legislation. For her part, House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said there was absolutely no evidence that states with caps fared any better with medical workforce shortages than states without caps.
 

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

A doctor and one of Idaho’s premier emergency medicine groups must pay millions of dollars to a stroke patient and his wife in what is being called the second-largest medical malpractice award in the state’s history, according to a report in the Idaho Capital Sun.

The suit, which took nearly 5 years after filing to wend its way through the courts, stems from an incident that took place in the early morning of March 29, 2016. An Ada County resident peered into the family bathroom and discovered that her husband, Carl B. Stiefel, lay on the floor confused and vomiting and complaining of a severe headache. Recently, the man had experienced several of these same symptoms, plus sinus congestion, dizziness, and tinnitus.

As Mr. Stiefel’s confusion worsened, his wife called for an ambulance, which arrived at the local hospital emergency department (ED) at 4:12 AM. Within approximately 11 minutes, the patient was examined by a doctor and later underwent a cranial CT scan, which a second doctor said showed “no intracranial process.”

Mr. Stiefel’s condition improved somewhat, although his dizziness persisted, leaving him still unable to walk. At this point, his primary ED doctor admitted him to the hospital for “benign positional vertigo.” The doctor also joined colleagues in suggesting that the patient might well be a candidate for an MRI, just in case his condition failed to improve over the next few hours.

But the transfer from the ED to the main hospital reportedly took at least 3 hours, during which time Mr. Stiefel’s condition deteriorated. Once admitted, he was observed by a healthcare provider — the news report doesn’t indicate precisely who — to be “delirious without meaningful interaction.” At least 4 hours would pass before the patient was seen by still another doctor, as the plaintiffs later claimed.

The patient remained disoriented and restless as the day unfolded. The MRI contemplated earlier was finally ordered, but the scan wasn’t available for several hours, according to nursing notes cited by the plaintiffs in their lawsuit.

Finally, the scan was administered at about 5:50 PM, almost 12 hours since Mr. Stiefel had first arrived at the ED. It showed that he had a torn artery in his neck and was experiencing a stroke. This was, clearly, a very different diagnosis from the one that his admitting doctor had entered into his notes.

A surgeon operated to repair the arterial tear, but the patient’s condition continued to worsen. Over the next 3 weeks, Mr. Stiefel went from the hospital to a local rehab facility, and back to the hospital with bacterial meningitis. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with “an irreparable brain injury,” which ultimately left him disabled and unable to work.

At this point, he and his wife sued a broad range of defendants — a radiology group, individual healthcare providers employed by the hospital, the primary ED physician, and that doctor’s emergency medicine group. In the nearly 5 intervening years, each of the named defendants settled, except the ED doctor and the emergency medicine group.

The two remaining defendants vigorously contested the claims against them, denying “any and all allegations of responsibility and liability” and contending that the patient’s injuries resulted from unforeseen complications rather than the care that had been administered.

The Ada County jury disagreed, however. It found that the primary ED doctor — and by extension the group to which the doctor belonged — did in fact negligently and recklessly fail to meet the proper standard of care, leading directly to the patient’s life-altering injuries.

For this failure, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $13.5 million, well over the state’s current inflation-adjusted cap of $400,000. (To date, Idaho’s largest med-mal award is nearly $30 million, handed down more than 20 years ago.)

At press time, there was no word of an appeal. 
 

Man sues dentist, ends up changing state medical malpractice law

In a surprise move, the Connecticut Supreme Court in mid-February reversed its own precedent regarding a 2005 law requiring certain pre-litigation steps be taken before state residents are permitted to file a medical malpractice claim, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

In its 2011 review of that earlier law — passed to ensure that complainants had a reasonable basis for their claims — the high court went the legislature one better. It held that state courts had no “personal jurisdiction” in adjudicating malpractice claims in the absence of required supporting documents — specifically, a proper certificate and opinion letter from “a similar healthcare provider.”

For the past 12 years, this meant that any suit lacking the proper documents could not only be halted but dismissed with prejudice, meaning that such a case couldn’t be refiled.

That interpretation of the law was eventually challenged, however, by a Connecticut man who sued his dentist. Filed in 2018, the suit alleged that, during a root canal, the dentist had failed to properly diagnose and treat his patient’s dental abscess, which ultimately required surgery.

Complying with what he regarded as state law, the man attached a letter of opinion to his complaint, which testified to the merits of his claim. But, in a twist with significant consequences, the letter was written by an endodontist, not a general dentist. In response, the dentist’s attorneys submitted a motion to dismiss to the trial court, arguing that the plaintiff had breached the “similar provider” provision and that therefore the opinion letter was defective and the entire suit should be dismissed.

The trial court agreed — and the Connecticut Appellate Court went on to affirm the lower-court ruling. The case might have ended there, but the plaintiff appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which agreed to review the appellate court finding. 

In a 6-0 decision, the high court looked back on its 2011 interpretation of the med-mal statute, which in the intervening years had given rise to “a body of case law.” The problem with that body of law, the justices argued, was that it had “imposed substantially greater burdens on plaintiffs than the legislature intended” — and it did so “by allowing potentially curable, technical, pre-litigation defects to defeat otherwise meritorious malpractice actions, sometimes after several years of litigation.”

In short, said the justices, there was nothing in the original statute that required a court to dismiss a suit once it found a letter of opinion to be deficient. This was a “curable” defect, one that shouldn’t be allowed to derail an otherwise meritorious claim.

As for the case that prompted the high court’s latest review — that is, the Connecticut man’s suit against his dentist — the justices found that the appellate court had also erred when it tossed out the endodontist’s opinion letter. Technically, the dentist might not have been an endodontist, said the justices, but he had in fact practiced in the field during the course of a long career, so close enough.

The justices kicked the case back to the trial court, with instructions that it deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
 

Stakeholders divided over new awards cap

Last month, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law that limits the amount of noneconomic damages a successful med-mal plaintiff can collect, explains a story posted on Radio Iowa, among other news sites.

Under the new law, the limit for suits involving hospitals is capped at $2 million — while those involving all other healthcare providers are capped at $1 million. Beginning in 2028, those caps will be adjusted annually for inflation by 2.1%.

“When mistakes happen, Iowans deserve compensation, but arbitrary multimillion-dollar awards do more than that,” said Gov. Reynolds. “They act as a tax on all Iowans by raising the cost of care. They drive medical clinics out of business and medical students out of state.”

The CEO of Knoxville Hospital and Clinics — a well-known regional provider — agreed, saying that the new law helped to make Iowa “a more attractive place to practice medicine.”

But most Democrats in the GOP-controlled legislature — and 16 Republicans — voted against the legislation. For her part, House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said there was absolutely no evidence that states with caps fared any better with medical workforce shortages than states without caps.
 

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

The relatively recent innovation of heart transplantation after circulatory death of the donor is increasing the number of donor hearts available and leading to many more lives on the heart transplant waiting list being saved. Experts agree it’s a major and very welcome advance in medicine.

However, some of the processes involved in one approach to donation after circulatory death has raised ethical concerns and questions about whether they violate the “dead donor rule” – a principle that requires patients be declared dead before removal of life-sustaining organs for transplant.  

Rasi Bhadramani/iStock/Getty Images

Experts in the fields of transplantation and medical ethics have yet to reach consensus, causing problems for the transplant community, who worry that this could cause a loss of confidence in the entire transplant process.
 

A new pathway for heart transplantation

The traditional approach to transplantation is to retrieve organs from a donor who has been declared brain dead, known as “donation after brain death (DBD).” These patients have usually suffered a catastrophic brain injury but survived to get to intensive care.

As the brain swells because of injury, it becomes evident that all brain function is lost, and the patient is declared brain dead. However, breathing is maintained by the ventilator and the heart is still beating. Because the organs are being oxygenated, there is no immediate rush to retrieve the organs and the heart can be evaluated for its suitability for transplant in a calm and methodical way before it is removed.  

However, there is a massive shortage of organs, especially hearts, partially because of the limited number of donors who are declared brain dead in that setting.

In recent years, another pathway for organ transplantation has become available: “donation after circulatory death (DCD).” These patients also have suffered a catastrophic brain injury considered to be nonsurvivable, but unlike the DBD situation, the brain still has some function, so the patient does not meet the criteria for brain death. 

Still, because the patient is considered to have no chance of a meaningful recovery, the family often recognizes the futility of treatment and agrees to the withdrawal of life support. When this happens, the heart normally stops beating after a period of time. There is then a “stand-off time” – normally 5 minutes – after which death is declared and the organs can be removed. 

The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.

For many years it was thought the oxygen deprivation that occurs after circulatory death would be too much to provide a functional organ. But researchers in the United Kingdom and Australia developed techniques to overcome this problem, and early DCD heart transplants took place in 2014 in Australia, and in 2015 in the United Kingdom.

Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.

In the United States, 348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.

It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD.  

Currently, there are about 8,000 heart transplants worldwide each year and with DCD this could rise to about 10,000, potentially an extra 2,000 lives saved each year, experts estimate.  

Two different approaches to DCD heart transplantation have been developed.
 

The direct procurement approach

The Australian group, based at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, developed a technique referred to as “direct procurement”: after the standoff period and declaration of circulatory death, the chest is opened, and the heart is removed. New technology, the Organ Care System (OCS) heart box (Transmedics), is then used to reperfuse and restart the heart outside the body so its suitability for transplant can be assessed.

The heart is kept perfused and beating in the OCS box while it is being transported to the recipient. This has enabled longer transit times than the traditional way of transporting the nonbeating heart on ice.

Peter MacDonald, MD, PhD, from the St Vincent’s group that developed this approach, said, “Most people thought a heart from a DCD donor would not survive transport – that the injury to the heart from the combination of life support withdrawal, stand-off time, and cold storage would be too much. But we modeled the process in the lab and were able to show that we were able to get the heart beating again after withdrawal of life support.”

Dr. McDonald noted that “the recipient of their first human DCD heart transplant using this machine in 2014 is still alive and well.” The Australian group has now done 85 of these DCD heart transplants, and they have increased the number of heart transplant procedures at St. Vincent’s Hospital by 25%.
 

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP)  

The U.K. group, based at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England, developed a different approach to DCD: After the standoff period and the declaration of circulatory death, the donor is connected to a heart/lung machine using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) so that the heart is perfused and starts beating again inside the body. This approach is known as normothermic regional perfusion (NRP).

Marius Berman, MD, surgical lead for Transplantation and Mechanical Circulatory Support at Papworth, explained that the NRP approach allows the heart to be perfused and restarted faster than direct procurement, resulting in a shorter ischemic time. The heart can be evaluated thoroughly for suitability for transplantation in situ before committing to transplantation, and because the heart is less damaged, it can be transported on ice without use of the OCS box.

“DCD is more complicated than DBD, because the heart has stopped and has to be restarted. Retrieval teams have to be very experienced,” Dr. Berman noted. “This is more of an issue for the direct procurement approach, where the chest has to be opened and the heart retrieved as fast as possible. It is a rush. The longer time without the heart being perfused correlates to an increased incidence of primary graft dysfunction. With NRP, we can get the heart started again more quickly, which is crucial.”

Stephen Large, MBBS, another cardiothoracic surgeon with the Papworth team, added that they have reduced ischemic time to about 15 minutes. “That’s considerably shorter than reperfusing the heart outside the body,” he said. “This results in a healthier organ for the recipient.” 

The NRP approach is also less expensive than direct procurement as one OCS box costs about $75,000.

He pointed out that the NRP approach can also be used for heart transplants in children and even small babies, while currently the direct procurement technique is not typically suitable for children because the OCS box was not designed for small hearts. 

DCD, using either technique, has increased the heart transplant rate by 40% at Papworth, and is being used at all seven transplant centers in the United Kingdom, “a world first,” noted Dr. Large.

The Papworth team recently published its 5-year experience with 25 NRP transplants and 85 direct procurement transplants. Survival in recipients was no different, although there was some suggestion that the NRP hearts may have been in slightly better condition, possibly being more resistant to immunological rejection.
 

Ethical concerns about NRP

Restarting the circulation during the NRP process has raised ethical concerns.

When the NRP technique was first used in the United States, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).

Harry Peled, MD, Providence St. Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, Calif., coauthor of a recent Viewpoint on the issue, is board-certified in both cardiology and critical care, and said he is a supporter of DCD using direct procurement, but he does not believe that NRP is ethical at present. He is not part of the ACP, but said his views align with those of the organization.

There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the U.S. definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule. 

“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Dr. Peled pointed out.

“I have no problem with DCD using direct procurement as we are not restarting the circulation. But NRP is restarting the circulation and that is a problem for me,” Dr. Peled said. “I would argue that by performing NRP, we are resuscitating the patient.”

The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.

“We have established that these patients do not have enough brain function for a meaningful life, which is why a decision has been made to remove life support, but they have not been declared brain dead,” Dr. Peled said.

With direct procurement, the circulation is not restarted so there is no chance that any brain function will be restored, he said. “But with NRP, because the arch vessels have to be clamped to prevent brain circulation, that is admitting there is concern that brain function may be restored if circulation to the brain is reestablished, and brain function is compatible with life. As we do not know whether there is any meaningful circulation to the brain via the small collaterals, there is, in effect, a risk of bringing the patient back to life.”

The other major concern for some is whether even a very small amount of circulation to the brain would be enough to support consciousness, and “we don’t know that for certain,” Dr. Peled said.
 

The argument for NRP

Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP for DCD heart transplantation in the United States, and has coauthored responses to these ethical concerns.

“People are confusing many issues to produce an argument against NRP,” he said.

“Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.”

Dr. Moazami pointed out this concept was accepted for the practice of abdominal DCD when it first started in the United States in the 1990s where cold perfusion was used to preserve the abdominal organs before they were retrieved from the body.

“The new approach of using NRP is similar except that it involves circulating warm blood, which will preserve organs better and result in higher quality organs for the recipient.”

On the issue of concern about possible circulation to the brain, Dr. Moazami said: “The ethical critics of NRP are questioning whether the brain may not be dead. We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have had a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.”

He maintained that the clamping of the arch vessels to the head will ensure that when the circulation is restarted “the natural process of circulatory death leading to brain death will continue to progress.” 

On the concerns about possible collateral flow to the brain, Dr. Moazami said there is no evidence that this occurs. “Prominent neurologists have said it is impossible for collaterals to provide any meaningful blood flow to the brain in this situation. And even if there is small amount of blood flow to the brain, this would be insufficient to maintain any meaningful brain function.”

But Dr. Peled argues that this has not been proved. “Even though we don’t think there is enough circulation to the brain for any function with NRP, we don’t know that with 100% certainty,” he said. “In my view, if there is a possibility of even the smallest amount of brain flow, we are going against the dead donor rule. We are rewriting the rules of death.”

Dr. Moazami countered: “Nothing in life is 100%, particularly in medicine. With that argument can you also prove with 100% certainty to me that there is absolutely no brain function with regular direct procurement DCD?  We know that brain death has started, but the question is: Has it been completed? We don’t know the answer to this question with 100% certainty, but that is the case for regular direct procurement DCD as well, and that has been accepted by almost everyone.

“The whole issue revolves around when are we comfortable that death has occurred,” he said. “Those against NRP are concerned that organs are being taken before the patient is dead. But the key point is that the patient has already been declared dead.”

Since there is some concern over the ethics of NRP, why not just stick to DCD with direct procurement?

Dr. Moazami argued that NRP results in healthier organs. “NRP allows more successful heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants. It preserves all the organs better,” he said. “This will have a big impact on recipients – they would obviously much prefer a healthier organ. In addition, the process is easier and cheaper, so more centers will be able to do it, therefore more transplants will get done and more lives will be saved if NRP is used.”

He added: “I am a physician taking care of sick patients. I believe I have to respect the wishes of the donor and the donor family; make sure I’m not doing any harm to the donor; and ensure the best quality possible of the organ I am retrieving to best serve the recipient. I am happy I am doing this by using NRP for DCD heart transplantation.”

But Dr. Peled argued that while NRP may have some possible advantages over direct procurement, that does not justify allowing a process to go ahead that is unethical.

“The fact that NRP may result in some benefits doesn’t justify violating the dead donor rule or the possibility, however small, of causing pain to the donor. If it’s unethical, it’s unethical. Full stop,” he said.

“I feel that NRP is not respecting the rights of our patients and that the process does not have adequate transparency. We took it to our local ethics committee, and they decided not to approve NRP in our health care system. I agree with this decision,” Dr. Peled said.  

“The trouble is different experts and different countries are not in agreement about this,” he added. “Reasonable, well-informed people are in disagreement. I do not believe we can have a standard of care where there is not consensus.”
 

Cautious nod

In a 2022 consensus statement, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) gave a cautious nod toward DCD and NRP, dependent on local recommendations.

The ISHLT conclusion reads: “With appropriate consideration of the ethical principles involved in organ donation, DCD can be undertaken in a morally permissible manner. In all cases, the introduction of DCD programs should be in accordance with local legal regulations. Countries lacking a DCD pathway should be encouraged to develop national ethical, professional, and legal frameworks to address both public and professional concerns.”

The author of a recent editorial on the subject, Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, head of the heart transplant program at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said, “DCD is a great step forward. People regularly die on the heart transplant waiting list. DCD will increase the supply of donor hearts by 20% to 30%.”

However, he noted that while most societies have agreed on a protocol for organ donation based on brain death, the situation is more complicated with circulatory death.

“Different countries have different definitions of circulatory death. How long do we have to wait after the heart has stopped beating before the patient is declared dead? Most countries have agreed on 5 minutes, but other countries have imposed different periods and as such, different definitions of death.

“The ISHLT statement says that restarting the circulation is acceptable if death has been certified according to prevailing law and surgical interventions are undertaken to preclude any restoration of cerebral circulation. But our problem is that different regional societies have different definitions of circulatory, death which makes the situation confusing.”

Dr. Jorde added: “We also have to weigh the wishes of the donor and their family. If family, advocating what are presumed to be the donor’s wishes, have decided that DCD would be acceptable and they understand the concept and wish to donate the organs after circulatory death, this should be strongly considered under the concept of self-determination, a basic human right.”
 

Variations in practice around the world 

This ethical debate has led to large variations in practice around the world, with some countries, such as Spain, allowing both methods of DCD, while Australia allows direct procurement but not NRP, and Germany currently does not allow DCD at all.

In the United States, things are even more complicated, with some states allowing NRP while others don’t. Even within states, some hospitals and transplant organizations allow NRP, and others don’t. 

David A. D’Alessandro, MD, cardiac surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, uses only the direct procurement approach as his region does not allow NRP.

“The direct procurement approach is not controversial and to me that’s a big advantage. I believe we need to agree on the ethics first, and then get into a debate about which technique is better,” he told this news organization.

Dr. D’Alessandro and his group recently published the results of their study, with direct procurement DCD heart transplantation showing similar short-term clinical outcomes to DBD.

“We are only doing direct procurement and we are seeing good results that appear to be comparable to DBD. That is good enough for me,” he said.

Dr. D’Alessandro estimates that in the United States both types of DCD procedures are currently being done about equally.

“Anything we can do to increase the amount of hearts available for transplantation is a big deal,” he said. “At the moment, only the very sickest patients get a heart transplant, and many patients die on the transplant waiting list. Very sadly, many young people die every year from a circulatory death after having life support withdrawn. Before DCD, these beautiful functional organs were not able to be used. Now we have a way of saving lives with these organs.”

Dr. D’Alessandro noted that more and more centers in the United States are starting to perform DCD heart transplants. 

“Not every transplant center may join in as the DCD procedures are very resource-intensive and time-consuming. For low-volume transplant centers, it may not be worth the expense and anguish to do DCD heart transplants. But bigger centers will need to engage in DCD to remain competitive. My guess is that 50%-70% of U.S. transplant centers will do DCD in future.”

He said he thinks it is a “medical shortcoming” that agreement cannot be reached on the ethics of NRP. “In an ideal world everyone would be on the same page. It makes me a bit uncomfortable that some people think it’s okay and some people don’t.”

Adam DeVore, MD, a cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., the first U.S. center to perform an adult DCD heart transplant, reported that his institution uses both methods, with the choice sometimes depending on how far the heart must travel.

“If the recipient is near, NRP may be chosen as the heart is transported on ice, but if it needs to go further away we are more likely to choose direct procurement and use of the OCS box,” he said. 

“I am really proud of what we’ve been able to do, helping to introduce DCD in the U.S.,” Dr. DeVore said. “This is having a massive benefit in increasing the number of hearts for donation with great outcomes.”  

But he acknowledged that the whole concept of DCD is somewhat controversial.  

“The idea of brain death really came about for the purpose of heart donation. The two things are very intricately tied. Trying to do heart donation without brain death having been declared is foreign to people. Also, in DCD there is the issue of [this]: When life support is removed, how long do we wait before death can be declared? That could be in conflict with how long the organ needs to remain viable. We are going through the process now of looking at these questions. There is a lot of variation in the U.S. about the withdrawal of care and the declaration of death, which is not completely standardized.

“But the concept of circulatory death itself is accepted after the withdrawal of life support. I think it’s the rush to take the organs out that makes it more difficult.”

Dr. DeVore said the field is moving forward now. “As the process has become more common, people have become more comfortable, probably because of the big difference it will make to saving lives. But we do need to try and standardize best practices.”

A recent Canadian review of the ethics of DCD concluded that the direct procurement approach would be in alignment with current medical guidelines, but that further work is required to evaluate the consistency of NRP with current Canadian death determination policy and to ensure the absence of brain perfusion during this process.

In the United Kingdom, the definition of death is brain-based, and brain death is defined on a neurological basis.

Dr. Stephen Large from Papworth explained that this recognizes the presence of brain-stem death through brain stem reflex testing after the withdrawal of life support, cardiorespiratory arrest and 5 further minutes of ischemia. As long as NRP does not restore intracranial (brainstem) perfusion after death has been confirmed, then it is consistent with laws for death determination and therefore both direct procurement and NRP are permissible.

However, the question over possible collateral flow to the brain has led the United Kingdom to pause the NRP technique as routine practice while this is investigated further. So, at the present time, the vast majority of DCD heart transplants are being conducted using the direct procurement approach.

But the United Kingdom is facing the bigger challenge: national funding that will soon end. “The DCD program in the U.K. has been extremely successful, increasing heart transplant rates by up to 28%,” Dr. Berman said. “Everybody wants it to continue. But at present the DCD program only has national funding in the U.K. until March 2023. We don’t know what will happen after that.”

The current model in the United Kingdom consists of three specialized DCD heart retrieval teams, a national protocol of direct organ procurement and delivery of DCD hearts to all seven transplant programs, both adult and pediatric.

If the national funding is not extended, “we will go back to individual hospitals trying to fund their own programs. That will be a serious threat to the program and could result in a large reduction in heart transplants,” said Dr. Berman.
 

Definition of death  

The crux of the issue with regard to NRP seems to be variations in how death is defined and the interpretation of those definitions.  

DCD donors will have had many tests indicating severe brain damage, a neurologist will have declared the prognosis is futile, and relatives will have agreed to withdraw life support, Dr. Jorde said. “The heart stops beating, and the stand-off time means that blood flow to the brain ceases completely for at least 5 minutes before circulatory death is declared. This is enough on its own to stop brain function.”

Dr. Large made the point that by the time the circulation is reestablished with NRP, more time has elapsed, and the brain will have been without perfusion for much longer than 5 minutes, so it would be “physiologically almost impossible” for there to be any blood flow to the brain.

“Because these brains are already very damaged before life support was removed, the intracranial pressure is high, which will further discourage blood flow to the brain,” he said. Then the donor goes through a period of anoxic heart arrest, up to 16 minutes at a minimum of no blood supply, enough on its own to stop meaningful brain function. 

“It’s asking an awful lot to believe that there might be any brain function left,” he said. “And if, on reestablishing the circulation with NRP, there is any blood in the collaterals, the pressure of such flow is so low it won’t enter the brain.”

Dr. Large also pointed out that the fact that the United Kingdom requires a neurologic definition for brain-stem death makes the process easier. 

In Australia, St. Vincent’s cardiologist Dr. MacDonald noted that death is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulation, so the NRP procedure is not allowed.

“With NRP, there is an ethical dilemma over whether the patient has legally died or not. Different countries have different ways of defining death. Perhaps society will have to review of the definition of death,” he suggested. Death is a process, “but for organ donation, we have to choose a moment in time of that process that satisfies everyone – when there is no prospect of recovery of the donor but the organs can still be utilized without harming the donor.” 

Dr. MacDonald said the field is in transition. “I don’t want to argue that one technique is better than the other; I think it’s good to have access to both techniques. Anything that will increase the number of transplants we can do is a good thing.”
 

Collaborative decision

Everyone seems to agree that there should be an effort to try to define death in a uniform way worldwide, and that international, national and local regulations are aligned with each other.

Dr. Jorde said: “It is of critical importance that local guidelines are streamlined, firstly in any one given country and then globally, and these things must be discussed transparently within society with all stakeholders – doctors, patients, citizens.”

Dr. Peled, from Providence St. Jude in California, concurred: “There is the possibility that we could change the definition of death, but that cannot be a decision based solely on transplant organizations. It has to be a collaborative decision with a large input from groups who do not have an interest in the procurement of organs.”

He added: “The dialogue so far has been civil, and everybody is trying to do the right thing. My hope is that as a civilized society we will figure out a way forward. At present, there is significant controversy about NRP, and families need to know that. My main concern is that if there is any lack of transparency in getting informed consent, then this risks people losing trust in the donation system.” 

Dr. Moazami, from NYU Langone, said the controversy has cast a cloud over the practice of NRP throughout the world. “We need to get it sorted out.”

He said he believes the way forward is to settle the question of whether there is any meaningful blood flow to the brain with the NRP technique.

“This is where the research has to focus. I believe this concern is hypothetical, but I am happy to do the studies to confirm that. Then, the issue should come to a rest. I think that is the right way forward – to do the studies rather than enforcing a moratorium on the practice because of a hypothetical concern.”

These studies on blood flow to the brain are now getting started in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

The U.K. study is being run by Antonio Rubino, MD, consultant in cardiothoracic anesthesia and intensive care at Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation and clinical lead, organ donation. Dr. Rubino explained that the study will assess cerebral blood flow using CT angiography of the brain. “We hypothesize that this will provide evidence to indicate that brain blood flow is not present during NRP and promote trust in the use of NRP in routine practice,” he said.

Dr. Large said: “Rather than having these tortured arguments, we will do the measurements. For the sake of society in this situation, I think it’s good to stop and take a breath. We must measure this, and we are doing just that.”

If there is any blood flow at all, Dr. Large said they will then have to seek expert guidance. “Say we find there is 50 mL of blood flow and normal blood flow is 1,500 mL/min. We will need expert guidance on whether it is remotely possible to be sentient on that. I would say it would be extraordinarily unlikely.”  

Dr. Berman summarized the situation: “DCD is increasing the availability of hearts for transplant. This is saving lives, reducing the number of patients on the waiting list, and reducing hospital stays for patients unable to leave the hospital without a transplant. It is definitely here to stay. It is crucial that it gets funded properly, and it is also crucial that we resolve the NRP ethical issues as soon as possible.”

He is hopeful that some of these issues will be resolved this year.

Dr. MacDonald reported he has received “in-kind” support from Transmedics through provision of research modules for preclinical research studies. Dr. D’Alessandro reported he is on the speakers bureau for Abiomed, not relevant to this article. No other relevant disclosures were reported.
 

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

The relatively recent innovation of heart transplantation after circulatory death of the donor is increasing the number of donor hearts available and leading to many more lives on the heart transplant waiting list being saved. Experts agree it’s a major and very welcome advance in medicine.

However, some of the processes involved in one approach to donation after circulatory death has raised ethical concerns and questions about whether they violate the “dead donor rule” – a principle that requires patients be declared dead before removal of life-sustaining organs for transplant.  

Rasi Bhadramani/iStock/Getty Images

Experts in the fields of transplantation and medical ethics have yet to reach consensus, causing problems for the transplant community, who worry that this could cause a loss of confidence in the entire transplant process.
 

A new pathway for heart transplantation

The traditional approach to transplantation is to retrieve organs from a donor who has been declared brain dead, known as “donation after brain death (DBD).” These patients have usually suffered a catastrophic brain injury but survived to get to intensive care.

As the brain swells because of injury, it becomes evident that all brain function is lost, and the patient is declared brain dead. However, breathing is maintained by the ventilator and the heart is still beating. Because the organs are being oxygenated, there is no immediate rush to retrieve the organs and the heart can be evaluated for its suitability for transplant in a calm and methodical way before it is removed.  

However, there is a massive shortage of organs, especially hearts, partially because of the limited number of donors who are declared brain dead in that setting.

In recent years, another pathway for organ transplantation has become available: “donation after circulatory death (DCD).” These patients also have suffered a catastrophic brain injury considered to be nonsurvivable, but unlike the DBD situation, the brain still has some function, so the patient does not meet the criteria for brain death. 

Still, because the patient is considered to have no chance of a meaningful recovery, the family often recognizes the futility of treatment and agrees to the withdrawal of life support. When this happens, the heart normally stops beating after a period of time. There is then a “stand-off time” – normally 5 minutes – after which death is declared and the organs can be removed. 

The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.

For many years it was thought the oxygen deprivation that occurs after circulatory death would be too much to provide a functional organ. But researchers in the United Kingdom and Australia developed techniques to overcome this problem, and early DCD heart transplants took place in 2014 in Australia, and in 2015 in the United Kingdom.

Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.

In the United States, 348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.

It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD.  

Currently, there are about 8,000 heart transplants worldwide each year and with DCD this could rise to about 10,000, potentially an extra 2,000 lives saved each year, experts estimate.  

Two different approaches to DCD heart transplantation have been developed.
 

The direct procurement approach

The Australian group, based at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, developed a technique referred to as “direct procurement”: after the standoff period and declaration of circulatory death, the chest is opened, and the heart is removed. New technology, the Organ Care System (OCS) heart box (Transmedics), is then used to reperfuse and restart the heart outside the body so its suitability for transplant can be assessed.

The heart is kept perfused and beating in the OCS box while it is being transported to the recipient. This has enabled longer transit times than the traditional way of transporting the nonbeating heart on ice.

Peter MacDonald, MD, PhD, from the St Vincent’s group that developed this approach, said, “Most people thought a heart from a DCD donor would not survive transport – that the injury to the heart from the combination of life support withdrawal, stand-off time, and cold storage would be too much. But we modeled the process in the lab and were able to show that we were able to get the heart beating again after withdrawal of life support.”

Dr. McDonald noted that “the recipient of their first human DCD heart transplant using this machine in 2014 is still alive and well.” The Australian group has now done 85 of these DCD heart transplants, and they have increased the number of heart transplant procedures at St. Vincent’s Hospital by 25%.
 

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP)  

The U.K. group, based at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England, developed a different approach to DCD: After the standoff period and the declaration of circulatory death, the donor is connected to a heart/lung machine using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) so that the heart is perfused and starts beating again inside the body. This approach is known as normothermic regional perfusion (NRP).

Marius Berman, MD, surgical lead for Transplantation and Mechanical Circulatory Support at Papworth, explained that the NRP approach allows the heart to be perfused and restarted faster than direct procurement, resulting in a shorter ischemic time. The heart can be evaluated thoroughly for suitability for transplantation in situ before committing to transplantation, and because the heart is less damaged, it can be transported on ice without use of the OCS box.

“DCD is more complicated than DBD, because the heart has stopped and has to be restarted. Retrieval teams have to be very experienced,” Dr. Berman noted. “This is more of an issue for the direct procurement approach, where the chest has to be opened and the heart retrieved as fast as possible. It is a rush. The longer time without the heart being perfused correlates to an increased incidence of primary graft dysfunction. With NRP, we can get the heart started again more quickly, which is crucial.”

Stephen Large, MBBS, another cardiothoracic surgeon with the Papworth team, added that they have reduced ischemic time to about 15 minutes. “That’s considerably shorter than reperfusing the heart outside the body,” he said. “This results in a healthier organ for the recipient.” 

The NRP approach is also less expensive than direct procurement as one OCS box costs about $75,000.

He pointed out that the NRP approach can also be used for heart transplants in children and even small babies, while currently the direct procurement technique is not typically suitable for children because the OCS box was not designed for small hearts. 

DCD, using either technique, has increased the heart transplant rate by 40% at Papworth, and is being used at all seven transplant centers in the United Kingdom, “a world first,” noted Dr. Large.

The Papworth team recently published its 5-year experience with 25 NRP transplants and 85 direct procurement transplants. Survival in recipients was no different, although there was some suggestion that the NRP hearts may have been in slightly better condition, possibly being more resistant to immunological rejection.
 

Ethical concerns about NRP

Restarting the circulation during the NRP process has raised ethical concerns.

When the NRP technique was first used in the United States, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).

Harry Peled, MD, Providence St. Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, Calif., coauthor of a recent Viewpoint on the issue, is board-certified in both cardiology and critical care, and said he is a supporter of DCD using direct procurement, but he does not believe that NRP is ethical at present. He is not part of the ACP, but said his views align with those of the organization.

There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the U.S. definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule. 

“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Dr. Peled pointed out.

“I have no problem with DCD using direct procurement as we are not restarting the circulation. But NRP is restarting the circulation and that is a problem for me,” Dr. Peled said. “I would argue that by performing NRP, we are resuscitating the patient.”

The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.

“We have established that these patients do not have enough brain function for a meaningful life, which is why a decision has been made to remove life support, but they have not been declared brain dead,” Dr. Peled said.

With direct procurement, the circulation is not restarted so there is no chance that any brain function will be restored, he said. “But with NRP, because the arch vessels have to be clamped to prevent brain circulation, that is admitting there is concern that brain function may be restored if circulation to the brain is reestablished, and brain function is compatible with life. As we do not know whether there is any meaningful circulation to the brain via the small collaterals, there is, in effect, a risk of bringing the patient back to life.”

The other major concern for some is whether even a very small amount of circulation to the brain would be enough to support consciousness, and “we don’t know that for certain,” Dr. Peled said.
 

The argument for NRP

Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP for DCD heart transplantation in the United States, and has coauthored responses to these ethical concerns.

“People are confusing many issues to produce an argument against NRP,” he said.

“Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.”

Dr. Moazami pointed out this concept was accepted for the practice of abdominal DCD when it first started in the United States in the 1990s where cold perfusion was used to preserve the abdominal organs before they were retrieved from the body.

“The new approach of using NRP is similar except that it involves circulating warm blood, which will preserve organs better and result in higher quality organs for the recipient.”

On the issue of concern about possible circulation to the brain, Dr. Moazami said: “The ethical critics of NRP are questioning whether the brain may not be dead. We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have had a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.”

He maintained that the clamping of the arch vessels to the head will ensure that when the circulation is restarted “the natural process of circulatory death leading to brain death will continue to progress.” 

On the concerns about possible collateral flow to the brain, Dr. Moazami said there is no evidence that this occurs. “Prominent neurologists have said it is impossible for collaterals to provide any meaningful blood flow to the brain in this situation. And even if there is small amount of blood flow to the brain, this would be insufficient to maintain any meaningful brain function.”

But Dr. Peled argues that this has not been proved. “Even though we don’t think there is enough circulation to the brain for any function with NRP, we don’t know that with 100% certainty,” he said. “In my view, if there is a possibility of even the smallest amount of brain flow, we are going against the dead donor rule. We are rewriting the rules of death.”

Dr. Moazami countered: “Nothing in life is 100%, particularly in medicine. With that argument can you also prove with 100% certainty to me that there is absolutely no brain function with regular direct procurement DCD?  We know that brain death has started, but the question is: Has it been completed? We don’t know the answer to this question with 100% certainty, but that is the case for regular direct procurement DCD as well, and that has been accepted by almost everyone.

“The whole issue revolves around when are we comfortable that death has occurred,” he said. “Those against NRP are concerned that organs are being taken before the patient is dead. But the key point is that the patient has already been declared dead.”

Since there is some concern over the ethics of NRP, why not just stick to DCD with direct procurement?

Dr. Moazami argued that NRP results in healthier organs. “NRP allows more successful heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants. It preserves all the organs better,” he said. “This will have a big impact on recipients – they would obviously much prefer a healthier organ. In addition, the process is easier and cheaper, so more centers will be able to do it, therefore more transplants will get done and more lives will be saved if NRP is used.”

He added: “I am a physician taking care of sick patients. I believe I have to respect the wishes of the donor and the donor family; make sure I’m not doing any harm to the donor; and ensure the best quality possible of the organ I am retrieving to best serve the recipient. I am happy I am doing this by using NRP for DCD heart transplantation.”

But Dr. Peled argued that while NRP may have some possible advantages over direct procurement, that does not justify allowing a process to go ahead that is unethical.

“The fact that NRP may result in some benefits doesn’t justify violating the dead donor rule or the possibility, however small, of causing pain to the donor. If it’s unethical, it’s unethical. Full stop,” he said.

“I feel that NRP is not respecting the rights of our patients and that the process does not have adequate transparency. We took it to our local ethics committee, and they decided not to approve NRP in our health care system. I agree with this decision,” Dr. Peled said.  

“The trouble is different experts and different countries are not in agreement about this,” he added. “Reasonable, well-informed people are in disagreement. I do not believe we can have a standard of care where there is not consensus.”
 

Cautious nod

In a 2022 consensus statement, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) gave a cautious nod toward DCD and NRP, dependent on local recommendations.

The ISHLT conclusion reads: “With appropriate consideration of the ethical principles involved in organ donation, DCD can be undertaken in a morally permissible manner. In all cases, the introduction of DCD programs should be in accordance with local legal regulations. Countries lacking a DCD pathway should be encouraged to develop national ethical, professional, and legal frameworks to address both public and professional concerns.”

The author of a recent editorial on the subject, Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, head of the heart transplant program at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said, “DCD is a great step forward. People regularly die on the heart transplant waiting list. DCD will increase the supply of donor hearts by 20% to 30%.”

However, he noted that while most societies have agreed on a protocol for organ donation based on brain death, the situation is more complicated with circulatory death.

“Different countries have different definitions of circulatory death. How long do we have to wait after the heart has stopped beating before the patient is declared dead? Most countries have agreed on 5 minutes, but other countries have imposed different periods and as such, different definitions of death.

“The ISHLT statement says that restarting the circulation is acceptable if death has been certified according to prevailing law and surgical interventions are undertaken to preclude any restoration of cerebral circulation. But our problem is that different regional societies have different definitions of circulatory, death which makes the situation confusing.”

Dr. Jorde added: “We also have to weigh the wishes of the donor and their family. If family, advocating what are presumed to be the donor’s wishes, have decided that DCD would be acceptable and they understand the concept and wish to donate the organs after circulatory death, this should be strongly considered under the concept of self-determination, a basic human right.”
 

Variations in practice around the world 

This ethical debate has led to large variations in practice around the world, with some countries, such as Spain, allowing both methods of DCD, while Australia allows direct procurement but not NRP, and Germany currently does not allow DCD at all.

In the United States, things are even more complicated, with some states allowing NRP while others don’t. Even within states, some hospitals and transplant organizations allow NRP, and others don’t. 

David A. D’Alessandro, MD, cardiac surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, uses only the direct procurement approach as his region does not allow NRP.

“The direct procurement approach is not controversial and to me that’s a big advantage. I believe we need to agree on the ethics first, and then get into a debate about which technique is better,” he told this news organization.

Dr. D’Alessandro and his group recently published the results of their study, with direct procurement DCD heart transplantation showing similar short-term clinical outcomes to DBD.

“We are only doing direct procurement and we are seeing good results that appear to be comparable to DBD. That is good enough for me,” he said.

Dr. D’Alessandro estimates that in the United States both types of DCD procedures are currently being done about equally.

“Anything we can do to increase the amount of hearts available for transplantation is a big deal,” he said. “At the moment, only the very sickest patients get a heart transplant, and many patients die on the transplant waiting list. Very sadly, many young people die every year from a circulatory death after having life support withdrawn. Before DCD, these beautiful functional organs were not able to be used. Now we have a way of saving lives with these organs.”

Dr. D’Alessandro noted that more and more centers in the United States are starting to perform DCD heart transplants. 

“Not every transplant center may join in as the DCD procedures are very resource-intensive and time-consuming. For low-volume transplant centers, it may not be worth the expense and anguish to do DCD heart transplants. But bigger centers will need to engage in DCD to remain competitive. My guess is that 50%-70% of U.S. transplant centers will do DCD in future.”

He said he thinks it is a “medical shortcoming” that agreement cannot be reached on the ethics of NRP. “In an ideal world everyone would be on the same page. It makes me a bit uncomfortable that some people think it’s okay and some people don’t.”

Adam DeVore, MD, a cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., the first U.S. center to perform an adult DCD heart transplant, reported that his institution uses both methods, with the choice sometimes depending on how far the heart must travel.

“If the recipient is near, NRP may be chosen as the heart is transported on ice, but if it needs to go further away we are more likely to choose direct procurement and use of the OCS box,” he said. 

“I am really proud of what we’ve been able to do, helping to introduce DCD in the U.S.,” Dr. DeVore said. “This is having a massive benefit in increasing the number of hearts for donation with great outcomes.”  

But he acknowledged that the whole concept of DCD is somewhat controversial.  

“The idea of brain death really came about for the purpose of heart donation. The two things are very intricately tied. Trying to do heart donation without brain death having been declared is foreign to people. Also, in DCD there is the issue of [this]: When life support is removed, how long do we wait before death can be declared? That could be in conflict with how long the organ needs to remain viable. We are going through the process now of looking at these questions. There is a lot of variation in the U.S. about the withdrawal of care and the declaration of death, which is not completely standardized.

“But the concept of circulatory death itself is accepted after the withdrawal of life support. I think it’s the rush to take the organs out that makes it more difficult.”

Dr. DeVore said the field is moving forward now. “As the process has become more common, people have become more comfortable, probably because of the big difference it will make to saving lives. But we do need to try and standardize best practices.”

A recent Canadian review of the ethics of DCD concluded that the direct procurement approach would be in alignment with current medical guidelines, but that further work is required to evaluate the consistency of NRP with current Canadian death determination policy and to ensure the absence of brain perfusion during this process.

In the United Kingdom, the definition of death is brain-based, and brain death is defined on a neurological basis.

Dr. Stephen Large from Papworth explained that this recognizes the presence of brain-stem death through brain stem reflex testing after the withdrawal of life support, cardiorespiratory arrest and 5 further minutes of ischemia. As long as NRP does not restore intracranial (brainstem) perfusion after death has been confirmed, then it is consistent with laws for death determination and therefore both direct procurement and NRP are permissible.

However, the question over possible collateral flow to the brain has led the United Kingdom to pause the NRP technique as routine practice while this is investigated further. So, at the present time, the vast majority of DCD heart transplants are being conducted using the direct procurement approach.

But the United Kingdom is facing the bigger challenge: national funding that will soon end. “The DCD program in the U.K. has been extremely successful, increasing heart transplant rates by up to 28%,” Dr. Berman said. “Everybody wants it to continue. But at present the DCD program only has national funding in the U.K. until March 2023. We don’t know what will happen after that.”

The current model in the United Kingdom consists of three specialized DCD heart retrieval teams, a national protocol of direct organ procurement and delivery of DCD hearts to all seven transplant programs, both adult and pediatric.

If the national funding is not extended, “we will go back to individual hospitals trying to fund their own programs. That will be a serious threat to the program and could result in a large reduction in heart transplants,” said Dr. Berman.
 

Definition of death  

The crux of the issue with regard to NRP seems to be variations in how death is defined and the interpretation of those definitions.  

DCD donors will have had many tests indicating severe brain damage, a neurologist will have declared the prognosis is futile, and relatives will have agreed to withdraw life support, Dr. Jorde said. “The heart stops beating, and the stand-off time means that blood flow to the brain ceases completely for at least 5 minutes before circulatory death is declared. This is enough on its own to stop brain function.”

Dr. Large made the point that by the time the circulation is reestablished with NRP, more time has elapsed, and the brain will have been without perfusion for much longer than 5 minutes, so it would be “physiologically almost impossible” for there to be any blood flow to the brain.

“Because these brains are already very damaged before life support was removed, the intracranial pressure is high, which will further discourage blood flow to the brain,” he said. Then the donor goes through a period of anoxic heart arrest, up to 16 minutes at a minimum of no blood supply, enough on its own to stop meaningful brain function. 

“It’s asking an awful lot to believe that there might be any brain function left,” he said. “And if, on reestablishing the circulation with NRP, there is any blood in the collaterals, the pressure of such flow is so low it won’t enter the brain.”

Dr. Large also pointed out that the fact that the United Kingdom requires a neurologic definition for brain-stem death makes the process easier. 

In Australia, St. Vincent’s cardiologist Dr. MacDonald noted that death is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulation, so the NRP procedure is not allowed.

“With NRP, there is an ethical dilemma over whether the patient has legally died or not. Different countries have different ways of defining death. Perhaps society will have to review of the definition of death,” he suggested. Death is a process, “but for organ donation, we have to choose a moment in time of that process that satisfies everyone – when there is no prospect of recovery of the donor but the organs can still be utilized without harming the donor.” 

Dr. MacDonald said the field is in transition. “I don’t want to argue that one technique is better than the other; I think it’s good to have access to both techniques. Anything that will increase the number of transplants we can do is a good thing.”
 

Collaborative decision

Everyone seems to agree that there should be an effort to try to define death in a uniform way worldwide, and that international, national and local regulations are aligned with each other.

Dr. Jorde said: “It is of critical importance that local guidelines are streamlined, firstly in any one given country and then globally, and these things must be discussed transparently within society with all stakeholders – doctors, patients, citizens.”

Dr. Peled, from Providence St. Jude in California, concurred: “There is the possibility that we could change the definition of death, but that cannot be a decision based solely on transplant organizations. It has to be a collaborative decision with a large input from groups who do not have an interest in the procurement of organs.”

He added: “The dialogue so far has been civil, and everybody is trying to do the right thing. My hope is that as a civilized society we will figure out a way forward. At present, there is significant controversy about NRP, and families need to know that. My main concern is that if there is any lack of transparency in getting informed consent, then this risks people losing trust in the donation system.” 

Dr. Moazami, from NYU Langone, said the controversy has cast a cloud over the practice of NRP throughout the world. “We need to get it sorted out.”

He said he believes the way forward is to settle the question of whether there is any meaningful blood flow to the brain with the NRP technique.

“This is where the research has to focus. I believe this concern is hypothetical, but I am happy to do the studies to confirm that. Then, the issue should come to a rest. I think that is the right way forward – to do the studies rather than enforcing a moratorium on the practice because of a hypothetical concern.”

These studies on blood flow to the brain are now getting started in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

The U.K. study is being run by Antonio Rubino, MD, consultant in cardiothoracic anesthesia and intensive care at Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation and clinical lead, organ donation. Dr. Rubino explained that the study will assess cerebral blood flow using CT angiography of the brain. “We hypothesize that this will provide evidence to indicate that brain blood flow is not present during NRP and promote trust in the use of NRP in routine practice,” he said.

Dr. Large said: “Rather than having these tortured arguments, we will do the measurements. For the sake of society in this situation, I think it’s good to stop and take a breath. We must measure this, and we are doing just that.”

If there is any blood flow at all, Dr. Large said they will then have to seek expert guidance. “Say we find there is 50 mL of blood flow and normal blood flow is 1,500 mL/min. We will need expert guidance on whether it is remotely possible to be sentient on that. I would say it would be extraordinarily unlikely.”  

Dr. Berman summarized the situation: “DCD is increasing the availability of hearts for transplant. This is saving lives, reducing the number of patients on the waiting list, and reducing hospital stays for patients unable to leave the hospital without a transplant. It is definitely here to stay. It is crucial that it gets funded properly, and it is also crucial that we resolve the NRP ethical issues as soon as possible.”

He is hopeful that some of these issues will be resolved this year.

Dr. MacDonald reported he has received “in-kind” support from Transmedics through provision of research modules for preclinical research studies. Dr. D’Alessandro reported he is on the speakers bureau for Abiomed, not relevant to this article. No other relevant disclosures were reported.
 

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

The relatively recent innovation of heart transplantation after circulatory death of the donor is increasing the number of donor hearts available and leading to many more lives on the heart transplant waiting list being saved. Experts agree it’s a major and very welcome advance in medicine.

However, some of the processes involved in one approach to donation after circulatory death has raised ethical concerns and questions about whether they violate the “dead donor rule” – a principle that requires patients be declared dead before removal of life-sustaining organs for transplant.  

Rasi Bhadramani/iStock/Getty Images

Experts in the fields of transplantation and medical ethics have yet to reach consensus, causing problems for the transplant community, who worry that this could cause a loss of confidence in the entire transplant process.
 

A new pathway for heart transplantation

The traditional approach to transplantation is to retrieve organs from a donor who has been declared brain dead, known as “donation after brain death (DBD).” These patients have usually suffered a catastrophic brain injury but survived to get to intensive care.

As the brain swells because of injury, it becomes evident that all brain function is lost, and the patient is declared brain dead. However, breathing is maintained by the ventilator and the heart is still beating. Because the organs are being oxygenated, there is no immediate rush to retrieve the organs and the heart can be evaluated for its suitability for transplant in a calm and methodical way before it is removed.  

However, there is a massive shortage of organs, especially hearts, partially because of the limited number of donors who are declared brain dead in that setting.

In recent years, another pathway for organ transplantation has become available: “donation after circulatory death (DCD).” These patients also have suffered a catastrophic brain injury considered to be nonsurvivable, but unlike the DBD situation, the brain still has some function, so the patient does not meet the criteria for brain death. 

Still, because the patient is considered to have no chance of a meaningful recovery, the family often recognizes the futility of treatment and agrees to the withdrawal of life support. When this happens, the heart normally stops beating after a period of time. There is then a “stand-off time” – normally 5 minutes – after which death is declared and the organs can be removed. 

The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.

For many years it was thought the oxygen deprivation that occurs after circulatory death would be too much to provide a functional organ. But researchers in the United Kingdom and Australia developed techniques to overcome this problem, and early DCD heart transplants took place in 2014 in Australia, and in 2015 in the United Kingdom.

Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.

In the United States, 348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.

It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD.  

Currently, there are about 8,000 heart transplants worldwide each year and with DCD this could rise to about 10,000, potentially an extra 2,000 lives saved each year, experts estimate.  

Two different approaches to DCD heart transplantation have been developed.
 

The direct procurement approach

The Australian group, based at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, developed a technique referred to as “direct procurement”: after the standoff period and declaration of circulatory death, the chest is opened, and the heart is removed. New technology, the Organ Care System (OCS) heart box (Transmedics), is then used to reperfuse and restart the heart outside the body so its suitability for transplant can be assessed.

The heart is kept perfused and beating in the OCS box while it is being transported to the recipient. This has enabled longer transit times than the traditional way of transporting the nonbeating heart on ice.

Peter MacDonald, MD, PhD, from the St Vincent’s group that developed this approach, said, “Most people thought a heart from a DCD donor would not survive transport – that the injury to the heart from the combination of life support withdrawal, stand-off time, and cold storage would be too much. But we modeled the process in the lab and were able to show that we were able to get the heart beating again after withdrawal of life support.”

Dr. McDonald noted that “the recipient of their first human DCD heart transplant using this machine in 2014 is still alive and well.” The Australian group has now done 85 of these DCD heart transplants, and they have increased the number of heart transplant procedures at St. Vincent’s Hospital by 25%.
 

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP)  

The U.K. group, based at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England, developed a different approach to DCD: After the standoff period and the declaration of circulatory death, the donor is connected to a heart/lung machine using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) so that the heart is perfused and starts beating again inside the body. This approach is known as normothermic regional perfusion (NRP).

Marius Berman, MD, surgical lead for Transplantation and Mechanical Circulatory Support at Papworth, explained that the NRP approach allows the heart to be perfused and restarted faster than direct procurement, resulting in a shorter ischemic time. The heart can be evaluated thoroughly for suitability for transplantation in situ before committing to transplantation, and because the heart is less damaged, it can be transported on ice without use of the OCS box.

“DCD is more complicated than DBD, because the heart has stopped and has to be restarted. Retrieval teams have to be very experienced,” Dr. Berman noted. “This is more of an issue for the direct procurement approach, where the chest has to be opened and the heart retrieved as fast as possible. It is a rush. The longer time without the heart being perfused correlates to an increased incidence of primary graft dysfunction. With NRP, we can get the heart started again more quickly, which is crucial.”

Stephen Large, MBBS, another cardiothoracic surgeon with the Papworth team, added that they have reduced ischemic time to about 15 minutes. “That’s considerably shorter than reperfusing the heart outside the body,” he said. “This results in a healthier organ for the recipient.” 

The NRP approach is also less expensive than direct procurement as one OCS box costs about $75,000.

He pointed out that the NRP approach can also be used for heart transplants in children and even small babies, while currently the direct procurement technique is not typically suitable for children because the OCS box was not designed for small hearts. 

DCD, using either technique, has increased the heart transplant rate by 40% at Papworth, and is being used at all seven transplant centers in the United Kingdom, “a world first,” noted Dr. Large.

The Papworth team recently published its 5-year experience with 25 NRP transplants and 85 direct procurement transplants. Survival in recipients was no different, although there was some suggestion that the NRP hearts may have been in slightly better condition, possibly being more resistant to immunological rejection.
 

Ethical concerns about NRP

Restarting the circulation during the NRP process has raised ethical concerns.

When the NRP technique was first used in the United States, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).

Harry Peled, MD, Providence St. Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, Calif., coauthor of a recent Viewpoint on the issue, is board-certified in both cardiology and critical care, and said he is a supporter of DCD using direct procurement, but he does not believe that NRP is ethical at present. He is not part of the ACP, but said his views align with those of the organization.

There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the U.S. definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule. 

“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Dr. Peled pointed out.

“I have no problem with DCD using direct procurement as we are not restarting the circulation. But NRP is restarting the circulation and that is a problem for me,” Dr. Peled said. “I would argue that by performing NRP, we are resuscitating the patient.”

The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.

“We have established that these patients do not have enough brain function for a meaningful life, which is why a decision has been made to remove life support, but they have not been declared brain dead,” Dr. Peled said.

With direct procurement, the circulation is not restarted so there is no chance that any brain function will be restored, he said. “But with NRP, because the arch vessels have to be clamped to prevent brain circulation, that is admitting there is concern that brain function may be restored if circulation to the brain is reestablished, and brain function is compatible with life. As we do not know whether there is any meaningful circulation to the brain via the small collaterals, there is, in effect, a risk of bringing the patient back to life.”

The other major concern for some is whether even a very small amount of circulation to the brain would be enough to support consciousness, and “we don’t know that for certain,” Dr. Peled said.
 

The argument for NRP

Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP for DCD heart transplantation in the United States, and has coauthored responses to these ethical concerns.

“People are confusing many issues to produce an argument against NRP,” he said.

“Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.”

Dr. Moazami pointed out this concept was accepted for the practice of abdominal DCD when it first started in the United States in the 1990s where cold perfusion was used to preserve the abdominal organs before they were retrieved from the body.

“The new approach of using NRP is similar except that it involves circulating warm blood, which will preserve organs better and result in higher quality organs for the recipient.”

On the issue of concern about possible circulation to the brain, Dr. Moazami said: “The ethical critics of NRP are questioning whether the brain may not be dead. We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have had a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.”

He maintained that the clamping of the arch vessels to the head will ensure that when the circulation is restarted “the natural process of circulatory death leading to brain death will continue to progress.” 

On the concerns about possible collateral flow to the brain, Dr. Moazami said there is no evidence that this occurs. “Prominent neurologists have said it is impossible for collaterals to provide any meaningful blood flow to the brain in this situation. And even if there is small amount of blood flow to the brain, this would be insufficient to maintain any meaningful brain function.”

But Dr. Peled argues that this has not been proved. “Even though we don’t think there is enough circulation to the brain for any function with NRP, we don’t know that with 100% certainty,” he said. “In my view, if there is a possibility of even the smallest amount of brain flow, we are going against the dead donor rule. We are rewriting the rules of death.”

Dr. Moazami countered: “Nothing in life is 100%, particularly in medicine. With that argument can you also prove with 100% certainty to me that there is absolutely no brain function with regular direct procurement DCD?  We know that brain death has started, but the question is: Has it been completed? We don’t know the answer to this question with 100% certainty, but that is the case for regular direct procurement DCD as well, and that has been accepted by almost everyone.

“The whole issue revolves around when are we comfortable that death has occurred,” he said. “Those against NRP are concerned that organs are being taken before the patient is dead. But the key point is that the patient has already been declared dead.”

Since there is some concern over the ethics of NRP, why not just stick to DCD with direct procurement?

Dr. Moazami argued that NRP results in healthier organs. “NRP allows more successful heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants. It preserves all the organs better,” he said. “This will have a big impact on recipients – they would obviously much prefer a healthier organ. In addition, the process is easier and cheaper, so more centers will be able to do it, therefore more transplants will get done and more lives will be saved if NRP is used.”

He added: “I am a physician taking care of sick patients. I believe I have to respect the wishes of the donor and the donor family; make sure I’m not doing any harm to the donor; and ensure the best quality possible of the organ I am retrieving to best serve the recipient. I am happy I am doing this by using NRP for DCD heart transplantation.”

But Dr. Peled argued that while NRP may have some possible advantages over direct procurement, that does not justify allowing a process to go ahead that is unethical.

“The fact that NRP may result in some benefits doesn’t justify violating the dead donor rule or the possibility, however small, of causing pain to the donor. If it’s unethical, it’s unethical. Full stop,” he said.

“I feel that NRP is not respecting the rights of our patients and that the process does not have adequate transparency. We took it to our local ethics committee, and they decided not to approve NRP in our health care system. I agree with this decision,” Dr. Peled said.  

“The trouble is different experts and different countries are not in agreement about this,” he added. “Reasonable, well-informed people are in disagreement. I do not believe we can have a standard of care where there is not consensus.”
 

Cautious nod

In a 2022 consensus statement, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) gave a cautious nod toward DCD and NRP, dependent on local recommendations.

The ISHLT conclusion reads: “With appropriate consideration of the ethical principles involved in organ donation, DCD can be undertaken in a morally permissible manner. In all cases, the introduction of DCD programs should be in accordance with local legal regulations. Countries lacking a DCD pathway should be encouraged to develop national ethical, professional, and legal frameworks to address both public and professional concerns.”

The author of a recent editorial on the subject, Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, head of the heart transplant program at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said, “DCD is a great step forward. People regularly die on the heart transplant waiting list. DCD will increase the supply of donor hearts by 20% to 30%.”

However, he noted that while most societies have agreed on a protocol for organ donation based on brain death, the situation is more complicated with circulatory death.

“Different countries have different definitions of circulatory death. How long do we have to wait after the heart has stopped beating before the patient is declared dead? Most countries have agreed on 5 minutes, but other countries have imposed different periods and as such, different definitions of death.

“The ISHLT statement says that restarting the circulation is acceptable if death has been certified according to prevailing law and surgical interventions are undertaken to preclude any restoration of cerebral circulation. But our problem is that different regional societies have different definitions of circulatory, death which makes the situation confusing.”

Dr. Jorde added: “We also have to weigh the wishes of the donor and their family. If family, advocating what are presumed to be the donor’s wishes, have decided that DCD would be acceptable and they understand the concept and wish to donate the organs after circulatory death, this should be strongly considered under the concept of self-determination, a basic human right.”
 

Variations in practice around the world 

This ethical debate has led to large variations in practice around the world, with some countries, such as Spain, allowing both methods of DCD, while Australia allows direct procurement but not NRP, and Germany currently does not allow DCD at all.

In the United States, things are even more complicated, with some states allowing NRP while others don’t. Even within states, some hospitals and transplant organizations allow NRP, and others don’t. 

David A. D’Alessandro, MD, cardiac surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, uses only the direct procurement approach as his region does not allow NRP.

“The direct procurement approach is not controversial and to me that’s a big advantage. I believe we need to agree on the ethics first, and then get into a debate about which technique is better,” he told this news organization.

Dr. D’Alessandro and his group recently published the results of their study, with direct procurement DCD heart transplantation showing similar short-term clinical outcomes to DBD.

“We are only doing direct procurement and we are seeing good results that appear to be comparable to DBD. That is good enough for me,” he said.

Dr. D’Alessandro estimates that in the United States both types of DCD procedures are currently being done about equally.

“Anything we can do to increase the amount of hearts available for transplantation is a big deal,” he said. “At the moment, only the very sickest patients get a heart transplant, and many patients die on the transplant waiting list. Very sadly, many young people die every year from a circulatory death after having life support withdrawn. Before DCD, these beautiful functional organs were not able to be used. Now we have a way of saving lives with these organs.”

Dr. D’Alessandro noted that more and more centers in the United States are starting to perform DCD heart transplants. 

“Not every transplant center may join in as the DCD procedures are very resource-intensive and time-consuming. For low-volume transplant centers, it may not be worth the expense and anguish to do DCD heart transplants. But bigger centers will need to engage in DCD to remain competitive. My guess is that 50%-70% of U.S. transplant centers will do DCD in future.”

He said he thinks it is a “medical shortcoming” that agreement cannot be reached on the ethics of NRP. “In an ideal world everyone would be on the same page. It makes me a bit uncomfortable that some people think it’s okay and some people don’t.”

Adam DeVore, MD, a cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., the first U.S. center to perform an adult DCD heart transplant, reported that his institution uses both methods, with the choice sometimes depending on how far the heart must travel.

“If the recipient is near, NRP may be chosen as the heart is transported on ice, but if it needs to go further away we are more likely to choose direct procurement and use of the OCS box,” he said. 

“I am really proud of what we’ve been able to do, helping to introduce DCD in the U.S.,” Dr. DeVore said. “This is having a massive benefit in increasing the number of hearts for donation with great outcomes.”  

But he acknowledged that the whole concept of DCD is somewhat controversial.  

“The idea of brain death really came about for the purpose of heart donation. The two things are very intricately tied. Trying to do heart donation without brain death having been declared is foreign to people. Also, in DCD there is the issue of [this]: When life support is removed, how long do we wait before death can be declared? That could be in conflict with how long the organ needs to remain viable. We are going through the process now of looking at these questions. There is a lot of variation in the U.S. about the withdrawal of care and the declaration of death, which is not completely standardized.

“But the concept of circulatory death itself is accepted after the withdrawal of life support. I think it’s the rush to take the organs out that makes it more difficult.”

Dr. DeVore said the field is moving forward now. “As the process has become more common, people have become more comfortable, probably because of the big difference it will make to saving lives. But we do need to try and standardize best practices.”

A recent Canadian review of the ethics of DCD concluded that the direct procurement approach would be in alignment with current medical guidelines, but that further work is required to evaluate the consistency of NRP with current Canadian death determination policy and to ensure the absence of brain perfusion during this process.

In the United Kingdom, the definition of death is brain-based, and brain death is defined on a neurological basis.

Dr. Stephen Large from Papworth explained that this recognizes the presence of brain-stem death through brain stem reflex testing after the withdrawal of life support, cardiorespiratory arrest and 5 further minutes of ischemia. As long as NRP does not restore intracranial (brainstem) perfusion after death has been confirmed, then it is consistent with laws for death determination and therefore both direct procurement and NRP are permissible.

However, the question over possible collateral flow to the brain has led the United Kingdom to pause the NRP technique as routine practice while this is investigated further. So, at the present time, the vast majority of DCD heart transplants are being conducted using the direct procurement approach.

But the United Kingdom is facing the bigger challenge: national funding that will soon end. “The DCD program in the U.K. has been extremely successful, increasing heart transplant rates by up to 28%,” Dr. Berman said. “Everybody wants it to continue. But at present the DCD program only has national funding in the U.K. until March 2023. We don’t know what will happen after that.”

The current model in the United Kingdom consists of three specialized DCD heart retrieval teams, a national protocol of direct organ procurement and delivery of DCD hearts to all seven transplant programs, both adult and pediatric.

If the national funding is not extended, “we will go back to individual hospitals trying to fund their own programs. That will be a serious threat to the program and could result in a large reduction in heart transplants,” said Dr. Berman.
 

Definition of death  

The crux of the issue with regard to NRP seems to be variations in how death is defined and the interpretation of those definitions.  

DCD donors will have had many tests indicating severe brain damage, a neurologist will have declared the prognosis is futile, and relatives will have agreed to withdraw life support, Dr. Jorde said. “The heart stops beating, and the stand-off time means that blood flow to the brain ceases completely for at least 5 minutes before circulatory death is declared. This is enough on its own to stop brain function.”

Dr. Large made the point that by the time the circulation is reestablished with NRP, more time has elapsed, and the brain will have been without perfusion for much longer than 5 minutes, so it would be “physiologically almost impossible” for there to be any blood flow to the brain.

“Because these brains are already very damaged before life support was removed, the intracranial pressure is high, which will further discourage blood flow to the brain,” he said. Then the donor goes through a period of anoxic heart arrest, up to 16 minutes at a minimum of no blood supply, enough on its own to stop meaningful brain function. 

“It’s asking an awful lot to believe that there might be any brain function left,” he said. “And if, on reestablishing the circulation with NRP, there is any blood in the collaterals, the pressure of such flow is so low it won’t enter the brain.”

Dr. Large also pointed out that the fact that the United Kingdom requires a neurologic definition for brain-stem death makes the process easier. 

In Australia, St. Vincent’s cardiologist Dr. MacDonald noted that death is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulation, so the NRP procedure is not allowed.

“With NRP, there is an ethical dilemma over whether the patient has legally died or not. Different countries have different ways of defining death. Perhaps society will have to review of the definition of death,” he suggested. Death is a process, “but for organ donation, we have to choose a moment in time of that process that satisfies everyone – when there is no prospect of recovery of the donor but the organs can still be utilized without harming the donor.” 

Dr. MacDonald said the field is in transition. “I don’t want to argue that one technique is better than the other; I think it’s good to have access to both techniques. Anything that will increase the number of transplants we can do is a good thing.”
 

Collaborative decision

Everyone seems to agree that there should be an effort to try to define death in a uniform way worldwide, and that international, national and local regulations are aligned with each other.

Dr. Jorde said: “It is of critical importance that local guidelines are streamlined, firstly in any one given country and then globally, and these things must be discussed transparently within society with all stakeholders – doctors, patients, citizens.”

Dr. Peled, from Providence St. Jude in California, concurred: “There is the possibility that we could change the definition of death, but that cannot be a decision based solely on transplant organizations. It has to be a collaborative decision with a large input from groups who do not have an interest in the procurement of organs.”

He added: “The dialogue so far has been civil, and everybody is trying to do the right thing. My hope is that as a civilized society we will figure out a way forward. At present, there is significant controversy about NRP, and families need to know that. My main concern is that if there is any lack of transparency in getting informed consent, then this risks people losing trust in the donation system.” 

Dr. Moazami, from NYU Langone, said the controversy has cast a cloud over the practice of NRP throughout the world. “We need to get it sorted out.”

He said he believes the way forward is to settle the question of whether there is any meaningful blood flow to the brain with the NRP technique.

“This is where the research has to focus. I believe this concern is hypothetical, but I am happy to do the studies to confirm that. Then, the issue should come to a rest. I think that is the right way forward – to do the studies rather than enforcing a moratorium on the practice because of a hypothetical concern.”

These studies on blood flow to the brain are now getting started in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

The U.K. study is being run by Antonio Rubino, MD, consultant in cardiothoracic anesthesia and intensive care at Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation and clinical lead, organ donation. Dr. Rubino explained that the study will assess cerebral blood flow using CT angiography of the brain. “We hypothesize that this will provide evidence to indicate that brain blood flow is not present during NRP and promote trust in the use of NRP in routine practice,” he said.

Dr. Large said: “Rather than having these tortured arguments, we will do the measurements. For the sake of society in this situation, I think it’s good to stop and take a breath. We must measure this, and we are doing just that.”

If there is any blood flow at all, Dr. Large said they will then have to seek expert guidance. “Say we find there is 50 mL of blood flow and normal blood flow is 1,500 mL/min. We will need expert guidance on whether it is remotely possible to be sentient on that. I would say it would be extraordinarily unlikely.”  

Dr. Berman summarized the situation: “DCD is increasing the availability of hearts for transplant. This is saving lives, reducing the number of patients on the waiting list, and reducing hospital stays for patients unable to leave the hospital without a transplant. It is definitely here to stay. It is crucial that it gets funded properly, and it is also crucial that we resolve the NRP ethical issues as soon as possible.”

He is hopeful that some of these issues will be resolved this year.

Dr. MacDonald reported he has received “in-kind” support from Transmedics through provision of research modules for preclinical research studies. Dr. D’Alessandro reported he is on the speakers bureau for Abiomed, not relevant to this article. No other relevant disclosures were reported.
 

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

Low bone mineral density (BMD), particularly at the femoral neck, emerged as a “robust” risk factor for dementia in older adults in the long-running Rotterdam Study. After adjusting for relevant factors, adults with the lowest versus highest BMD at the femoral neck were 42% more likely to develop dementia over roughly 10 years.

“Our research has found a link between bone loss and dementia, but further studies are needed to better understand this connection between bone density and memory loss,” study investigator Mohammad Arfan Ikram, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

“It’s possible that bone loss may occur already in the earliest phases of dementia, years before any clinical symptoms manifest themselves. If that were the case, bone loss could be an indicator of risk for dementia and people with bone loss could be targeted for screening and improved care,” Dr. Ikram added.

The study was published online in Neurology.


 

Common bedfellows

Low BMD and dementia commonly co-occur in the older population, with bone loss accelerating in dementia patients because of physical inactivity and poor nutrition. However, the extent to which bone loss already exists prior to the onset of dementia remains unclear.

The new findings are based on 3,651 adults (mean age 72 years, 58% women) in the Rotterdam Study who were free of dementia between 2002 and 2005. At that time, BMD at the femoral neck, lumbar spine, and total body were obtained using dual-energy radiography absorptiometry (DXA) and the trabecular bone score, which offers further details such as bone microarchitecture, was calculated. Participants were followed up until Jan. 1, 2020.

Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking status, body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, history of comorbidities (stroke and diabetes), and apolipoprotein E genotype.

During follow-up, 688 (19%) participants developed dementia, mostly Alzheimer’s disease (77%).

Throughout the entire follow-up period, lower BMD at the femoral neck (per standard deviation), but not at other bone sites, correlated with a higher risk for all-cause dementia (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) and Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28).

Within the first 10 years after baseline, the risk for dementia was greatest in individuals with the lowest BMD at the femoral neck (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.39-2.96) and total body (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.02) and lowest trabecular bone score (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.11-2.28).

Only BMD at the femoral neck was related to incident all-cause dementia in the first 5 years of follow-up (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.28-3.57).

These findings add “extra knowledge to previous findings that associations change with time, with the strength of the effect decreasing with increasing follow-up time,” the investigators noted.

They suggest that total BMD and trabecular bone score might occur as “prodromal features instead of causes of dementia and related toxic protein accumulation in the brain. In other words, persons with subclinical, incipient dementia may have poor bone health due to the dementia process instead of vice versa.”

The investigators noted that further research focusing on the predictive ability of BMD for dementia is necessary. “As an indicator of dementia risk, intervening in BMD may improve clinical care of these persons, especially considering the multicomorbidities and polypharmacy that are highly preventive in this group,” they concluded.
 

Little known bone-brain axis to blame?

In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, noted that “bone health is increasingly becoming front of mind in older adults. This study confirms an association between poor bone health – low bone mineral density and bone scores – and poor brain health.”

However, it’s unclear whether the link is causal – that is, whether poor bone health actually leads to poor brain health, and whether that can be staved off by directly supporting bone density,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“The link may very well be the little known ‘brain-bone axis’ – where our bones actually regulate our brain,” he added.

“Take for example the bone-generated hormone osteocalcin that crosses the blood-brain barrier and regulates brain functions like memory and cognition. Mice who don’t express the osteocalcin gene or are injected with antibodies that block osteocalcin actually have poor memory and worse anxiety,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“In any event, good bone health begins with healthy habits: a diet with plenty of calcium, vitamin D, and protein; a regimen of not just cardio, but also weight-bearing exercises; and staying clear of smoking and heavy alcohol intake,” he concluded.

The study was funded by Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly, the Netherlands Genomics Initiative, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, the European Commission, and the Municipality of Rotterdam. Dr. Ikram and Dr. Lakhan report no relevant disclosures.

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

Low bone mineral density (BMD), particularly at the femoral neck, emerged as a “robust” risk factor for dementia in older adults in the long-running Rotterdam Study. After adjusting for relevant factors, adults with the lowest versus highest BMD at the femoral neck were 42% more likely to develop dementia over roughly 10 years.

“Our research has found a link between bone loss and dementia, but further studies are needed to better understand this connection between bone density and memory loss,” study investigator Mohammad Arfan Ikram, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

“It’s possible that bone loss may occur already in the earliest phases of dementia, years before any clinical symptoms manifest themselves. If that were the case, bone loss could be an indicator of risk for dementia and people with bone loss could be targeted for screening and improved care,” Dr. Ikram added.

The study was published online in Neurology.


 

Common bedfellows

Low BMD and dementia commonly co-occur in the older population, with bone loss accelerating in dementia patients because of physical inactivity and poor nutrition. However, the extent to which bone loss already exists prior to the onset of dementia remains unclear.

The new findings are based on 3,651 adults (mean age 72 years, 58% women) in the Rotterdam Study who were free of dementia between 2002 and 2005. At that time, BMD at the femoral neck, lumbar spine, and total body were obtained using dual-energy radiography absorptiometry (DXA) and the trabecular bone score, which offers further details such as bone microarchitecture, was calculated. Participants were followed up until Jan. 1, 2020.

Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking status, body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, history of comorbidities (stroke and diabetes), and apolipoprotein E genotype.

During follow-up, 688 (19%) participants developed dementia, mostly Alzheimer’s disease (77%).

Throughout the entire follow-up period, lower BMD at the femoral neck (per standard deviation), but not at other bone sites, correlated with a higher risk for all-cause dementia (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) and Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28).

Within the first 10 years after baseline, the risk for dementia was greatest in individuals with the lowest BMD at the femoral neck (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.39-2.96) and total body (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.02) and lowest trabecular bone score (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.11-2.28).

Only BMD at the femoral neck was related to incident all-cause dementia in the first 5 years of follow-up (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.28-3.57).

These findings add “extra knowledge to previous findings that associations change with time, with the strength of the effect decreasing with increasing follow-up time,” the investigators noted.

They suggest that total BMD and trabecular bone score might occur as “prodromal features instead of causes of dementia and related toxic protein accumulation in the brain. In other words, persons with subclinical, incipient dementia may have poor bone health due to the dementia process instead of vice versa.”

The investigators noted that further research focusing on the predictive ability of BMD for dementia is necessary. “As an indicator of dementia risk, intervening in BMD may improve clinical care of these persons, especially considering the multicomorbidities and polypharmacy that are highly preventive in this group,” they concluded.
 

Little known bone-brain axis to blame?

In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, noted that “bone health is increasingly becoming front of mind in older adults. This study confirms an association between poor bone health – low bone mineral density and bone scores – and poor brain health.”

However, it’s unclear whether the link is causal – that is, whether poor bone health actually leads to poor brain health, and whether that can be staved off by directly supporting bone density,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“The link may very well be the little known ‘brain-bone axis’ – where our bones actually regulate our brain,” he added.

“Take for example the bone-generated hormone osteocalcin that crosses the blood-brain barrier and regulates brain functions like memory and cognition. Mice who don’t express the osteocalcin gene or are injected with antibodies that block osteocalcin actually have poor memory and worse anxiety,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“In any event, good bone health begins with healthy habits: a diet with plenty of calcium, vitamin D, and protein; a regimen of not just cardio, but also weight-bearing exercises; and staying clear of smoking and heavy alcohol intake,” he concluded.

The study was funded by Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly, the Netherlands Genomics Initiative, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, the European Commission, and the Municipality of Rotterdam. Dr. Ikram and Dr. Lakhan report no relevant disclosures.

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

Low bone mineral density (BMD), particularly at the femoral neck, emerged as a “robust” risk factor for dementia in older adults in the long-running Rotterdam Study. After adjusting for relevant factors, adults with the lowest versus highest BMD at the femoral neck were 42% more likely to develop dementia over roughly 10 years.

“Our research has found a link between bone loss and dementia, but further studies are needed to better understand this connection between bone density and memory loss,” study investigator Mohammad Arfan Ikram, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

“It’s possible that bone loss may occur already in the earliest phases of dementia, years before any clinical symptoms manifest themselves. If that were the case, bone loss could be an indicator of risk for dementia and people with bone loss could be targeted for screening and improved care,” Dr. Ikram added.

The study was published online in Neurology.


 

Common bedfellows

Low BMD and dementia commonly co-occur in the older population, with bone loss accelerating in dementia patients because of physical inactivity and poor nutrition. However, the extent to which bone loss already exists prior to the onset of dementia remains unclear.

The new findings are based on 3,651 adults (mean age 72 years, 58% women) in the Rotterdam Study who were free of dementia between 2002 and 2005. At that time, BMD at the femoral neck, lumbar spine, and total body were obtained using dual-energy radiography absorptiometry (DXA) and the trabecular bone score, which offers further details such as bone microarchitecture, was calculated. Participants were followed up until Jan. 1, 2020.

Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking status, body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, history of comorbidities (stroke and diabetes), and apolipoprotein E genotype.

During follow-up, 688 (19%) participants developed dementia, mostly Alzheimer’s disease (77%).

Throughout the entire follow-up period, lower BMD at the femoral neck (per standard deviation), but not at other bone sites, correlated with a higher risk for all-cause dementia (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) and Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28).

Within the first 10 years after baseline, the risk for dementia was greatest in individuals with the lowest BMD at the femoral neck (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.39-2.96) and total body (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.02) and lowest trabecular bone score (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.11-2.28).

Only BMD at the femoral neck was related to incident all-cause dementia in the first 5 years of follow-up (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.28-3.57).

These findings add “extra knowledge to previous findings that associations change with time, with the strength of the effect decreasing with increasing follow-up time,” the investigators noted.

They suggest that total BMD and trabecular bone score might occur as “prodromal features instead of causes of dementia and related toxic protein accumulation in the brain. In other words, persons with subclinical, incipient dementia may have poor bone health due to the dementia process instead of vice versa.”

The investigators noted that further research focusing on the predictive ability of BMD for dementia is necessary. “As an indicator of dementia risk, intervening in BMD may improve clinical care of these persons, especially considering the multicomorbidities and polypharmacy that are highly preventive in this group,” they concluded.
 

Little known bone-brain axis to blame?

In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, noted that “bone health is increasingly becoming front of mind in older adults. This study confirms an association between poor bone health – low bone mineral density and bone scores – and poor brain health.”

However, it’s unclear whether the link is causal – that is, whether poor bone health actually leads to poor brain health, and whether that can be staved off by directly supporting bone density,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“The link may very well be the little known ‘brain-bone axis’ – where our bones actually regulate our brain,” he added.

“Take for example the bone-generated hormone osteocalcin that crosses the blood-brain barrier and regulates brain functions like memory and cognition. Mice who don’t express the osteocalcin gene or are injected with antibodies that block osteocalcin actually have poor memory and worse anxiety,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“In any event, good bone health begins with healthy habits: a diet with plenty of calcium, vitamin D, and protein; a regimen of not just cardio, but also weight-bearing exercises; and staying clear of smoking and heavy alcohol intake,” he concluded.

The study was funded by Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly, the Netherlands Genomics Initiative, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, the European Commission, and the Municipality of Rotterdam. Dr. Ikram and Dr. Lakhan report no relevant disclosures.

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

Telomere shortening – a sign of cellular aging – is associated with multiple changes in the brain associated with dementia, whereas longer telomeres associate with better brain health and lower risk for dementia, new research suggests.

“This is the largest and most systematic investigation of telomere length and brain structure and function,” said Anya Topiwala, of the University of Oxford (England). “We found that longer telomeres associated with protection against dementia. The links with brain structure, we think, offer a possible mechanism for this protection. The hope is, by understanding the mechanism, new treatment targets could be uncovered,” Dr. Topiwala said.

The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
 

UK Biobank cohort

Telomeres form protective caps at the ends of chromosomes, and they progressively shorten with age, which may increase susceptibility to age-related diseases including Alzheimer’s disease. The mechanism underlying this risk is unclear and may involve changes in brain structure and function. However, the relationship between telomere length and neuroimaging markers is poorly characterized.

Dr. Topiwala and colleagues compared telomere length in white blood cells to brain MRI and health record data in 31,661 middle-aged and older adults in UK Biobank. They found that longer leucocyte telomere length (LTL) was associated with a larger volume of global and subcortical grey matter and a larger hippocampus – both of which shrink in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Longer telomeres were also associated with a thicker cerebral cortex, which thins as Alzheimer’s disease progresses.

Longer LTL was also associated with reduced incidence of dementia during follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.96).

Dr. Topiwala noted that many of the factors related to telomere shortening, such as age, genetics, and sex, can’t be changed. However, in a previous study, her team found that drinking alcohol may shorten telomere length. “So by this logic, reducing your alcohol intake could curb the shortening,” Dr. Topiwala said.

She said that a limitation of the study is that telomere length was measured in blood rather than brain and that it’s not clear at present how closely the two relate. Also, UK Biobank participants are generally more healthy than is the general population. Also, though telomere length and brain measures were associated, “we cannot from this study prove one is causing the other,” she added.
 

Need for more research

Commenting on the research, Percy Griffin, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, said that it’s been “known for some time that shortened telomeres – the caps at the end of DNA – are associated with increased aging.”

This new study is “interesting,” said Dr. Percy, in that it shows an association between longer telomere length in white blood cells and healthier brain structures in the areas associated with Alzheimer’s disease. The longer telomeres were also associated with lower incidence of all-cause dementia.

But echoing Dr. Topiwala, “association does not mean causation,” Dr. Griffin said. “More research is needed to understand how diverse mechanisms contributing to Alzheimer’s and other dementia can be targeted.”

“The Alzheimer’s Association is accelerating the discovery of novel therapies through its Part the Cloud funding program, which has invested more than $65 million to accelerate the development of 65 drug development programs,” Dr. Griffin said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Topiwala and Dr. Griffin report no relevant disclosures.

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

Telomere shortening – a sign of cellular aging – is associated with multiple changes in the brain associated with dementia, whereas longer telomeres associate with better brain health and lower risk for dementia, new research suggests.

“This is the largest and most systematic investigation of telomere length and brain structure and function,” said Anya Topiwala, of the University of Oxford (England). “We found that longer telomeres associated with protection against dementia. The links with brain structure, we think, offer a possible mechanism for this protection. The hope is, by understanding the mechanism, new treatment targets could be uncovered,” Dr. Topiwala said.

The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
 

UK Biobank cohort

Telomeres form protective caps at the ends of chromosomes, and they progressively shorten with age, which may increase susceptibility to age-related diseases including Alzheimer’s disease. The mechanism underlying this risk is unclear and may involve changes in brain structure and function. However, the relationship between telomere length and neuroimaging markers is poorly characterized.

Dr. Topiwala and colleagues compared telomere length in white blood cells to brain MRI and health record data in 31,661 middle-aged and older adults in UK Biobank. They found that longer leucocyte telomere length (LTL) was associated with a larger volume of global and subcortical grey matter and a larger hippocampus – both of which shrink in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Longer telomeres were also associated with a thicker cerebral cortex, which thins as Alzheimer’s disease progresses.

Longer LTL was also associated with reduced incidence of dementia during follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.96).

Dr. Topiwala noted that many of the factors related to telomere shortening, such as age, genetics, and sex, can’t be changed. However, in a previous study, her team found that drinking alcohol may shorten telomere length. “So by this logic, reducing your alcohol intake could curb the shortening,” Dr. Topiwala said.

She said that a limitation of the study is that telomere length was measured in blood rather than brain and that it’s not clear at present how closely the two relate. Also, UK Biobank participants are generally more healthy than is the general population. Also, though telomere length and brain measures were associated, “we cannot from this study prove one is causing the other,” she added.
 

Need for more research

Commenting on the research, Percy Griffin, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, said that it’s been “known for some time that shortened telomeres – the caps at the end of DNA – are associated with increased aging.”

This new study is “interesting,” said Dr. Percy, in that it shows an association between longer telomere length in white blood cells and healthier brain structures in the areas associated with Alzheimer’s disease. The longer telomeres were also associated with lower incidence of all-cause dementia.

But echoing Dr. Topiwala, “association does not mean causation,” Dr. Griffin said. “More research is needed to understand how diverse mechanisms contributing to Alzheimer’s and other dementia can be targeted.”

“The Alzheimer’s Association is accelerating the discovery of novel therapies through its Part the Cloud funding program, which has invested more than $65 million to accelerate the development of 65 drug development programs,” Dr. Griffin said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Topiwala and Dr. Griffin report no relevant disclosures.

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

Telomere shortening – a sign of cellular aging – is associated with multiple changes in the brain associated with dementia, whereas longer telomeres associate with better brain health and lower risk for dementia, new research suggests.

“This is the largest and most systematic investigation of telomere length and brain structure and function,” said Anya Topiwala, of the University of Oxford (England). “We found that longer telomeres associated with protection against dementia. The links with brain structure, we think, offer a possible mechanism for this protection. The hope is, by understanding the mechanism, new treatment targets could be uncovered,” Dr. Topiwala said.

The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
 

UK Biobank cohort

Telomeres form protective caps at the ends of chromosomes, and they progressively shorten with age, which may increase susceptibility to age-related diseases including Alzheimer’s disease. The mechanism underlying this risk is unclear and may involve changes in brain structure and function. However, the relationship between telomere length and neuroimaging markers is poorly characterized.

Dr. Topiwala and colleagues compared telomere length in white blood cells to brain MRI and health record data in 31,661 middle-aged and older adults in UK Biobank. They found that longer leucocyte telomere length (LTL) was associated with a larger volume of global and subcortical grey matter and a larger hippocampus – both of which shrink in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Longer telomeres were also associated with a thicker cerebral cortex, which thins as Alzheimer’s disease progresses.

Longer LTL was also associated with reduced incidence of dementia during follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.96).

Dr. Topiwala noted that many of the factors related to telomere shortening, such as age, genetics, and sex, can’t be changed. However, in a previous study, her team found that drinking alcohol may shorten telomere length. “So by this logic, reducing your alcohol intake could curb the shortening,” Dr. Topiwala said.

She said that a limitation of the study is that telomere length was measured in blood rather than brain and that it’s not clear at present how closely the two relate. Also, UK Biobank participants are generally more healthy than is the general population. Also, though telomere length and brain measures were associated, “we cannot from this study prove one is causing the other,” she added.
 

Need for more research

Commenting on the research, Percy Griffin, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, said that it’s been “known for some time that shortened telomeres – the caps at the end of DNA – are associated with increased aging.”

This new study is “interesting,” said Dr. Percy, in that it shows an association between longer telomere length in white blood cells and healthier brain structures in the areas associated with Alzheimer’s disease. The longer telomeres were also associated with lower incidence of all-cause dementia.

But echoing Dr. Topiwala, “association does not mean causation,” Dr. Griffin said. “More research is needed to understand how diverse mechanisms contributing to Alzheimer’s and other dementia can be targeted.”

“The Alzheimer’s Association is accelerating the discovery of novel therapies through its Part the Cloud funding program, which has invested more than $65 million to accelerate the development of 65 drug development programs,” Dr. Griffin said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Topiwala and Dr. Griffin report no relevant disclosures.

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

Recently, Dr. Jeffrey Benabio (I don’t believe we’ve ever met), wrote an enjoyable commentary mourning the loss of letters – the wonderful paper-and-pen documents that were, for the vast majority of human history, the main method of long distance communication. Even today, he notes, there’s something special about a letter, with the time and human effort required to sit down and put pen to paper, seal it into an envelope, and entrust it to the post office.

In his piece, Dr. Benabio describes his work desk as “a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug ... it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.”

With all due respect, I can’t do that. I need a desk to function. A REAL one.

I was 9 when I got my first desk, far more than a 4th-grader needed. My dad was an attorney and had an extra desk from a partner who’d retired. It was big and heavy and made of wood. It had three drawers on each side, one in the middle, and pull-outs on each side in case you needed even more writing space. I loved it. As the years went by I did homework, wrote short stories, and built models on it. I covered the pull-outs with stickers for starship controls, so on a whim I could jump to hyperspace. In 1984 a brand-new Apple Macintosh, with 128K of RAM showed up on it. I began using the computer to write college papers, but most of my work at the desk still involved books and handwriting.

My current home desk has been with me through college, medical school, residency, and fellowship, and it continues with me today.

At my office, though, is my main desk. Before 2013 I was in a small back office, with only room for a tiny three-drawer college desk.

But in 2013 I moved into my own office, for the first time in my career. Now it was time to bring in my real desk, waiting in storage since my Dad had retired.

Dr. Allan M. Block

This is my desk now. It’s huge. It’s heavy. My dad bought it when he started his law practice in 1968. It has eight drawers, and my Dad’s original leather blotter is on top. It came with his chrome and brass letter opener in the top drawer. It has space for my computer, writing pads, exam tools (for people who can’t get on the exam table across the hall), business cards, a few baubles from my kids, stapler, tape dispenser, pen cup, phone, coffee mug, and a million other things.

It takes up a lot of space, but I don’t mind. There’s a human comfort to it and the organized disorder on top of it. I’d much rather have my patients and I talk while sitting across my desk, in comfortable chairs, then in a sterile exam room with them on the exam table and me on a rolling chair trying to balance an iPad on my lap.

Everyone practices medicine differently. What works for me isn’t going to work for another doctor, and definitely not for another specialty.

But here, the big desk is part of my personal style. Sitting there gets me into “doctor mode” each day. I hope the more casual surroundings make it comfortable for patients, too.

It’s part of the soul of my practice, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

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

Recently, Dr. Jeffrey Benabio (I don’t believe we’ve ever met), wrote an enjoyable commentary mourning the loss of letters – the wonderful paper-and-pen documents that were, for the vast majority of human history, the main method of long distance communication. Even today, he notes, there’s something special about a letter, with the time and human effort required to sit down and put pen to paper, seal it into an envelope, and entrust it to the post office.

In his piece, Dr. Benabio describes his work desk as “a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug ... it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.”

With all due respect, I can’t do that. I need a desk to function. A REAL one.

I was 9 when I got my first desk, far more than a 4th-grader needed. My dad was an attorney and had an extra desk from a partner who’d retired. It was big and heavy and made of wood. It had three drawers on each side, one in the middle, and pull-outs on each side in case you needed even more writing space. I loved it. As the years went by I did homework, wrote short stories, and built models on it. I covered the pull-outs with stickers for starship controls, so on a whim I could jump to hyperspace. In 1984 a brand-new Apple Macintosh, with 128K of RAM showed up on it. I began using the computer to write college papers, but most of my work at the desk still involved books and handwriting.

My current home desk has been with me through college, medical school, residency, and fellowship, and it continues with me today.

At my office, though, is my main desk. Before 2013 I was in a small back office, with only room for a tiny three-drawer college desk.

But in 2013 I moved into my own office, for the first time in my career. Now it was time to bring in my real desk, waiting in storage since my Dad had retired.

Dr. Allan M. Block

This is my desk now. It’s huge. It’s heavy. My dad bought it when he started his law practice in 1968. It has eight drawers, and my Dad’s original leather blotter is on top. It came with his chrome and brass letter opener in the top drawer. It has space for my computer, writing pads, exam tools (for people who can’t get on the exam table across the hall), business cards, a few baubles from my kids, stapler, tape dispenser, pen cup, phone, coffee mug, and a million other things.

It takes up a lot of space, but I don’t mind. There’s a human comfort to it and the organized disorder on top of it. I’d much rather have my patients and I talk while sitting across my desk, in comfortable chairs, then in a sterile exam room with them on the exam table and me on a rolling chair trying to balance an iPad on my lap.

Everyone practices medicine differently. What works for me isn’t going to work for another doctor, and definitely not for another specialty.

But here, the big desk is part of my personal style. Sitting there gets me into “doctor mode” each day. I hope the more casual surroundings make it comfortable for patients, too.

It’s part of the soul of my practice, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

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

Recently, Dr. Jeffrey Benabio (I don’t believe we’ve ever met), wrote an enjoyable commentary mourning the loss of letters – the wonderful paper-and-pen documents that were, for the vast majority of human history, the main method of long distance communication. Even today, he notes, there’s something special about a letter, with the time and human effort required to sit down and put pen to paper, seal it into an envelope, and entrust it to the post office.

In his piece, Dr. Benabio describes his work desk as “a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug ... it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.”

With all due respect, I can’t do that. I need a desk to function. A REAL one.

I was 9 when I got my first desk, far more than a 4th-grader needed. My dad was an attorney and had an extra desk from a partner who’d retired. It was big and heavy and made of wood. It had three drawers on each side, one in the middle, and pull-outs on each side in case you needed even more writing space. I loved it. As the years went by I did homework, wrote short stories, and built models on it. I covered the pull-outs with stickers for starship controls, so on a whim I could jump to hyperspace. In 1984 a brand-new Apple Macintosh, with 128K of RAM showed up on it. I began using the computer to write college papers, but most of my work at the desk still involved books and handwriting.

My current home desk has been with me through college, medical school, residency, and fellowship, and it continues with me today.

At my office, though, is my main desk. Before 2013 I was in a small back office, with only room for a tiny three-drawer college desk.

But in 2013 I moved into my own office, for the first time in my career. Now it was time to bring in my real desk, waiting in storage since my Dad had retired.

Dr. Allan M. Block

This is my desk now. It’s huge. It’s heavy. My dad bought it when he started his law practice in 1968. It has eight drawers, and my Dad’s original leather blotter is on top. It came with his chrome and brass letter opener in the top drawer. It has space for my computer, writing pads, exam tools (for people who can’t get on the exam table across the hall), business cards, a few baubles from my kids, stapler, tape dispenser, pen cup, phone, coffee mug, and a million other things.

It takes up a lot of space, but I don’t mind. There’s a human comfort to it and the organized disorder on top of it. I’d much rather have my patients and I talk while sitting across my desk, in comfortable chairs, then in a sterile exam room with them on the exam table and me on a rolling chair trying to balance an iPad on my lap.

Everyone practices medicine differently. What works for me isn’t going to work for another doctor, and definitely not for another specialty.

But here, the big desk is part of my personal style. Sitting there gets me into “doctor mode” each day. I hope the more casual surroundings make it comfortable for patients, too.

It’s part of the soul of my practice, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

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