MDedge Neurology

Left-handed surgical residents and fellows reported persistent disorienting advice and stigma during training, according to a new study of 31 individuals from 15 US institutions.

“Surgical education is designed for the right-handed,” wrote Timothy J. Gilbert, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. Left-handed medical students “contend with instruments designed for right-handed use, perform worse on surgical skills assessments that are biased toward the right-handed, and are assumed to be right-handed by educators,” they said.

Challenges for left-handed medical students are not new. A study published in 2010 in the Journal of Surgical Education identified eight major issues for left-handed surgeons:

• Anxiety about laterality
• Lack of mentoring on lateral preference
• Difficulty handling traditional instruments
• Difficulty with minimally invasive instruments
• Inconvenience while assisting a right-handed person
• Pressure to change lateral preference
• Possible disadvantages with certain procedures
• Possible advantage situs inversus

Previous studies have shown reports of stigmatization and a lack of training and educational resources as barriers to improving the experience and fostering the skills of left-handed students, but the current data on the subjective experiences of left-handed students are limited, the authors said.

“Some of the members of the research team are left-handed, and I think their personal experience/understanding of the topic informed their desire to do projects within this space, since handedness is so thoroughly taken for granted by the right-handed majority,” Dr. Gilbert, who is right-handed, said in an interview. “It was important for our study to have parity between handedness to reduce bias in data interpretation,” he said. “In an era where much has been done to ensure equity between different groups, there’s not as much discussion about handedness within surgery as I believe there should be.”

In a new study published in Academic Medicine, the researchers recruited 31 self-identified left-handed surgical residents and fellows in six surgical specialties (general surgery, urology, plastic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, otolaryngology, and neurosurgery) and conducted semi-structured interviews between January 31, 2021, and June 20, 2021. The study population included 21 seniors (postgraduate year of 3 or higher), five juniors (postgraduate years 1 or 2), and five surgical fellows.

Overall, three themes surfaced from the participants’ educational experiences:

• Disorienting advice from faculty or residents
• Discouraging right-handed pressures and left-handed stigmatization
• Expression of the educational wishes of left-handed medical students

Conflicting Advice

The interviewees described feeling confused by conflicting advice about how to manage surgical procedures given their left-handedness, the researchers said. Some respondents reported being told to learn to do everything with the right hand; others were told to use their dominant hand (right or left) for fine motor skill elements but use the right hand for sewing.

Persistent Stigma and Switching

Survey respondents reported perceptions that others in the surgical setting were judgmental and inconsiderate; workshops involved demonstrations with a right-handed focus; and surgical technicians prepared needles that were loaded right-handed. “To minimize this negativity, participants often changed to their right hand,” the authors wrote. Some students who changed handedness reported an improved learning experience, in part because their handedness aligned with the instruments they used.

Educational Wish List

Study participants expressed the need for destigmatization of left-handedness in surgical through strategies including tangible mentorship, more granular and meaningful instruction, and normalization of left-handedness.

The study was limited by several factors including the focus only on surgical residents and fellows, with no left-handed medical students who pursued other specialties, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the retrospective design and potential bias from left-handed members of the research team, they said.

Notably, left-handed medical students reported negative experiences during training whether they operated with the right or left hand, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “From a strictly technical perspective, a left-handed medical student who is operatively left-handed will struggle to use hand-discordant tools in their dominant hand, whereas one who is operatively right-handed will struggle to use hand-concordant tools in their nondominant hand,” they said.

The researchers emphasized the need to consider the data in context; a nervous left-handed student who has been shown only right-handed tools and techniques and has not disclosed their left-handedness struggles when asked to close an incision may see themselves as the problem rather than the surgical education.

Takeaways to Improve Training

The current study showed the diversity of needs of left-handed surgical trainees and how more positive encouragement and support could improve their experiences, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

The strategies to improve training for left-handed medical students vary according to educational level, said Dr. Gilbert. “If you’re a surgical fellow or chief resident, you probably want more formal training, different tools, access to attendings who have experience performing an operation left-handed. If you’re a medical student, that is likely less important than feeling like you won’t be penalized of looked down upon for your handedness,” he said.

In the survey responses, “I at least was struck by how far a few accepting words could do when said in the right way at the right time,” he said.

“I think the most important takeaway is that educators should consider more what they say and do in the operating room to these junior students/trainees, as our data suggest even a single sentence at such a vulnerable point in time can push them into a choosing their handedness,” Dr. Gilbert said. “That’s not a small decision to make, and educators should be more thoughtful when engaging in the topic.”

Also, educators should offer left-handed resources during clerkship orientations on techniques such as knot-tying, he said. “This normalized handedness and may make students more comfortable with themselves in the operating room.”

Finally, “educators should be able to teach medical students the level-appropriate skills in either hand. If a medical student asks how to tie a knot or throw a stitch in their left hand, the educator should be able to demonstrate this to them effectively,” Dr. Gilbert added.

More research is needed to understand the needs and wants of left-handed medical students, including those who do not pursue surgery and of the skills of the residents and attendings who are tasked with educating these students, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

“Eventually, the goal is to implement concrete changes to improve resources for these students, but I think the most effective way to design these resources is to fully grasp the desires and concerns of all involved parties,” he said.

Residency Director Perspective

“We are increasingly sensitive to individual differences, but for some reason, left-handedness is a blind spot, although 10% of the population is left-handed,” said Stephen M. Kavic, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, in an interview.

“Interestingly, we do not ask handedness on residency applications, suggesting that it may be viewed as a negative trait in the selection process,” said Dr. Kavic, who also serves as program director of residency in surgery at the University of Maryland.

“While not left-handed myself, as Program Director, I have been tasked with training left-handed residents, and I appreciate the challenges,” Dr. Kavic said. “Our department is about 6% left-handed. Most left-handed surgeons are far more comfortable with their nondominant hand than right-handers are with theirs,” he noted. “We do have left-handed instruments available, but the ratio of sets is easily 100:1 right to left.”

With regard to the current study, Dr. Kavic said it was understandable that left-handed medical students feel stigmatized. A message for educators is to not presume right-handedness; instead, ask students about the hand preference on first meeting, and then training will be more inclusive, he said.

“There is a fundamental difference in mirror image training when a righty tries to teach a lefty. How do we do this better and in a standardized fashion? This article clearly shows that we still have a problem; now we must do the work to fix it,” Dr. Kavic said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kavic had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Left-handed surgical residents and fellows reported persistent disorienting advice and stigma during training, according to a new study of 31 individuals from 15 US institutions.

“Surgical education is designed for the right-handed,” wrote Timothy J. Gilbert, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. Left-handed medical students “contend with instruments designed for right-handed use, perform worse on surgical skills assessments that are biased toward the right-handed, and are assumed to be right-handed by educators,” they said.

Challenges for left-handed medical students are not new. A study published in 2010 in the Journal of Surgical Education identified eight major issues for left-handed surgeons:

• Anxiety about laterality
• Lack of mentoring on lateral preference
• Difficulty handling traditional instruments
• Difficulty with minimally invasive instruments
• Inconvenience while assisting a right-handed person
• Pressure to change lateral preference
• Possible disadvantages with certain procedures
• Possible advantage situs inversus

Previous studies have shown reports of stigmatization and a lack of training and educational resources as barriers to improving the experience and fostering the skills of left-handed students, but the current data on the subjective experiences of left-handed students are limited, the authors said.

“Some of the members of the research team are left-handed, and I think their personal experience/understanding of the topic informed their desire to do projects within this space, since handedness is so thoroughly taken for granted by the right-handed majority,” Dr. Gilbert, who is right-handed, said in an interview. “It was important for our study to have parity between handedness to reduce bias in data interpretation,” he said. “In an era where much has been done to ensure equity between different groups, there’s not as much discussion about handedness within surgery as I believe there should be.”

In a new study published in Academic Medicine, the researchers recruited 31 self-identified left-handed surgical residents and fellows in six surgical specialties (general surgery, urology, plastic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, otolaryngology, and neurosurgery) and conducted semi-structured interviews between January 31, 2021, and June 20, 2021. The study population included 21 seniors (postgraduate year of 3 or higher), five juniors (postgraduate years 1 or 2), and five surgical fellows.

Overall, three themes surfaced from the participants’ educational experiences:

• Disorienting advice from faculty or residents
• Discouraging right-handed pressures and left-handed stigmatization
• Expression of the educational wishes of left-handed medical students

Conflicting Advice

The interviewees described feeling confused by conflicting advice about how to manage surgical procedures given their left-handedness, the researchers said. Some respondents reported being told to learn to do everything with the right hand; others were told to use their dominant hand (right or left) for fine motor skill elements but use the right hand for sewing.

Persistent Stigma and Switching

Survey respondents reported perceptions that others in the surgical setting were judgmental and inconsiderate; workshops involved demonstrations with a right-handed focus; and surgical technicians prepared needles that were loaded right-handed. “To minimize this negativity, participants often changed to their right hand,” the authors wrote. Some students who changed handedness reported an improved learning experience, in part because their handedness aligned with the instruments they used.

Educational Wish List

Study participants expressed the need for destigmatization of left-handedness in surgical through strategies including tangible mentorship, more granular and meaningful instruction, and normalization of left-handedness.

The study was limited by several factors including the focus only on surgical residents and fellows, with no left-handed medical students who pursued other specialties, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the retrospective design and potential bias from left-handed members of the research team, they said.

Notably, left-handed medical students reported negative experiences during training whether they operated with the right or left hand, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “From a strictly technical perspective, a left-handed medical student who is operatively left-handed will struggle to use hand-discordant tools in their dominant hand, whereas one who is operatively right-handed will struggle to use hand-concordant tools in their nondominant hand,” they said.

The researchers emphasized the need to consider the data in context; a nervous left-handed student who has been shown only right-handed tools and techniques and has not disclosed their left-handedness struggles when asked to close an incision may see themselves as the problem rather than the surgical education.

Takeaways to Improve Training

The current study showed the diversity of needs of left-handed surgical trainees and how more positive encouragement and support could improve their experiences, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

The strategies to improve training for left-handed medical students vary according to educational level, said Dr. Gilbert. “If you’re a surgical fellow or chief resident, you probably want more formal training, different tools, access to attendings who have experience performing an operation left-handed. If you’re a medical student, that is likely less important than feeling like you won’t be penalized of looked down upon for your handedness,” he said.

In the survey responses, “I at least was struck by how far a few accepting words could do when said in the right way at the right time,” he said.

“I think the most important takeaway is that educators should consider more what they say and do in the operating room to these junior students/trainees, as our data suggest even a single sentence at such a vulnerable point in time can push them into a choosing their handedness,” Dr. Gilbert said. “That’s not a small decision to make, and educators should be more thoughtful when engaging in the topic.”

Also, educators should offer left-handed resources during clerkship orientations on techniques such as knot-tying, he said. “This normalized handedness and may make students more comfortable with themselves in the operating room.”

Finally, “educators should be able to teach medical students the level-appropriate skills in either hand. If a medical student asks how to tie a knot or throw a stitch in their left hand, the educator should be able to demonstrate this to them effectively,” Dr. Gilbert added.

More research is needed to understand the needs and wants of left-handed medical students, including those who do not pursue surgery and of the skills of the residents and attendings who are tasked with educating these students, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

“Eventually, the goal is to implement concrete changes to improve resources for these students, but I think the most effective way to design these resources is to fully grasp the desires and concerns of all involved parties,” he said.

Residency Director Perspective

“We are increasingly sensitive to individual differences, but for some reason, left-handedness is a blind spot, although 10% of the population is left-handed,” said Stephen M. Kavic, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, in an interview.

“Interestingly, we do not ask handedness on residency applications, suggesting that it may be viewed as a negative trait in the selection process,” said Dr. Kavic, who also serves as program director of residency in surgery at the University of Maryland.

“While not left-handed myself, as Program Director, I have been tasked with training left-handed residents, and I appreciate the challenges,” Dr. Kavic said. “Our department is about 6% left-handed. Most left-handed surgeons are far more comfortable with their nondominant hand than right-handers are with theirs,” he noted. “We do have left-handed instruments available, but the ratio of sets is easily 100:1 right to left.”

With regard to the current study, Dr. Kavic said it was understandable that left-handed medical students feel stigmatized. A message for educators is to not presume right-handedness; instead, ask students about the hand preference on first meeting, and then training will be more inclusive, he said.

“There is a fundamental difference in mirror image training when a righty tries to teach a lefty. How do we do this better and in a standardized fashion? This article clearly shows that we still have a problem; now we must do the work to fix it,” Dr. Kavic said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kavic had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Left-handed surgical residents and fellows reported persistent disorienting advice and stigma during training, according to a new study of 31 individuals from 15 US institutions.

“Surgical education is designed for the right-handed,” wrote Timothy J. Gilbert, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. Left-handed medical students “contend with instruments designed for right-handed use, perform worse on surgical skills assessments that are biased toward the right-handed, and are assumed to be right-handed by educators,” they said.

Challenges for left-handed medical students are not new. A study published in 2010 in the Journal of Surgical Education identified eight major issues for left-handed surgeons:

• Anxiety about laterality
• Lack of mentoring on lateral preference
• Difficulty handling traditional instruments
• Difficulty with minimally invasive instruments
• Inconvenience while assisting a right-handed person
• Pressure to change lateral preference
• Possible disadvantages with certain procedures
• Possible advantage situs inversus

Previous studies have shown reports of stigmatization and a lack of training and educational resources as barriers to improving the experience and fostering the skills of left-handed students, but the current data on the subjective experiences of left-handed students are limited, the authors said.

“Some of the members of the research team are left-handed, and I think their personal experience/understanding of the topic informed their desire to do projects within this space, since handedness is so thoroughly taken for granted by the right-handed majority,” Dr. Gilbert, who is right-handed, said in an interview. “It was important for our study to have parity between handedness to reduce bias in data interpretation,” he said. “In an era where much has been done to ensure equity between different groups, there’s not as much discussion about handedness within surgery as I believe there should be.”

In a new study published in Academic Medicine, the researchers recruited 31 self-identified left-handed surgical residents and fellows in six surgical specialties (general surgery, urology, plastic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, otolaryngology, and neurosurgery) and conducted semi-structured interviews between January 31, 2021, and June 20, 2021. The study population included 21 seniors (postgraduate year of 3 or higher), five juniors (postgraduate years 1 or 2), and five surgical fellows.

Overall, three themes surfaced from the participants’ educational experiences:

• Disorienting advice from faculty or residents
• Discouraging right-handed pressures and left-handed stigmatization
• Expression of the educational wishes of left-handed medical students

Conflicting Advice

The interviewees described feeling confused by conflicting advice about how to manage surgical procedures given their left-handedness, the researchers said. Some respondents reported being told to learn to do everything with the right hand; others were told to use their dominant hand (right or left) for fine motor skill elements but use the right hand for sewing.

Persistent Stigma and Switching

Survey respondents reported perceptions that others in the surgical setting were judgmental and inconsiderate; workshops involved demonstrations with a right-handed focus; and surgical technicians prepared needles that were loaded right-handed. “To minimize this negativity, participants often changed to their right hand,” the authors wrote. Some students who changed handedness reported an improved learning experience, in part because their handedness aligned with the instruments they used.

Educational Wish List

Study participants expressed the need for destigmatization of left-handedness in surgical through strategies including tangible mentorship, more granular and meaningful instruction, and normalization of left-handedness.

The study was limited by several factors including the focus only on surgical residents and fellows, with no left-handed medical students who pursued other specialties, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the retrospective design and potential bias from left-handed members of the research team, they said.

Notably, left-handed medical students reported negative experiences during training whether they operated with the right or left hand, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “From a strictly technical perspective, a left-handed medical student who is operatively left-handed will struggle to use hand-discordant tools in their dominant hand, whereas one who is operatively right-handed will struggle to use hand-concordant tools in their nondominant hand,” they said.

The researchers emphasized the need to consider the data in context; a nervous left-handed student who has been shown only right-handed tools and techniques and has not disclosed their left-handedness struggles when asked to close an incision may see themselves as the problem rather than the surgical education.

Takeaways to Improve Training

The current study showed the diversity of needs of left-handed surgical trainees and how more positive encouragement and support could improve their experiences, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

The strategies to improve training for left-handed medical students vary according to educational level, said Dr. Gilbert. “If you’re a surgical fellow or chief resident, you probably want more formal training, different tools, access to attendings who have experience performing an operation left-handed. If you’re a medical student, that is likely less important than feeling like you won’t be penalized of looked down upon for your handedness,” he said.

In the survey responses, “I at least was struck by how far a few accepting words could do when said in the right way at the right time,” he said.

“I think the most important takeaway is that educators should consider more what they say and do in the operating room to these junior students/trainees, as our data suggest even a single sentence at such a vulnerable point in time can push them into a choosing their handedness,” Dr. Gilbert said. “That’s not a small decision to make, and educators should be more thoughtful when engaging in the topic.”

Also, educators should offer left-handed resources during clerkship orientations on techniques such as knot-tying, he said. “This normalized handedness and may make students more comfortable with themselves in the operating room.”

Finally, “educators should be able to teach medical students the level-appropriate skills in either hand. If a medical student asks how to tie a knot or throw a stitch in their left hand, the educator should be able to demonstrate this to them effectively,” Dr. Gilbert added.

More research is needed to understand the needs and wants of left-handed medical students, including those who do not pursue surgery and of the skills of the residents and attendings who are tasked with educating these students, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

“Eventually, the goal is to implement concrete changes to improve resources for these students, but I think the most effective way to design these resources is to fully grasp the desires and concerns of all involved parties,” he said.

Residency Director Perspective

“We are increasingly sensitive to individual differences, but for some reason, left-handedness is a blind spot, although 10% of the population is left-handed,” said Stephen M. Kavic, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, in an interview.

“Interestingly, we do not ask handedness on residency applications, suggesting that it may be viewed as a negative trait in the selection process,” said Dr. Kavic, who also serves as program director of residency in surgery at the University of Maryland.

“While not left-handed myself, as Program Director, I have been tasked with training left-handed residents, and I appreciate the challenges,” Dr. Kavic said. “Our department is about 6% left-handed. Most left-handed surgeons are far more comfortable with their nondominant hand than right-handers are with theirs,” he noted. “We do have left-handed instruments available, but the ratio of sets is easily 100:1 right to left.”

With regard to the current study, Dr. Kavic said it was understandable that left-handed medical students feel stigmatized. A message for educators is to not presume right-handedness; instead, ask students about the hand preference on first meeting, and then training will be more inclusive, he said.

“There is a fundamental difference in mirror image training when a righty tries to teach a lefty. How do we do this better and in a standardized fashion? This article clearly shows that we still have a problem; now we must do the work to fix it,” Dr. Kavic said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kavic had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About 20% of US physicians took less than 1 week of vacation in the previous year, a new study found. When doctors did go on vacation, 70% reported working on their days off to handle patient-related tasks.

Burnout was more likely among doctors who worked more during vacations and lacked coverage in responding to electronic health messages from patients, according to the cross-sectional study, which was published on January 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.“It’s important to provide physicians with adequate time to disconnect from work and recharge,” said study coauthor Tait Shanafelt, MD, chief wellness officer at Stanford Medicine, in an interview.

The study’s conclusion that most US physicians work on their days off “is a marker of inadequate staffing, suboptimal teamwork, and poorly designed coverage systems,” he added. “Simply allocating people a number of vacation days is not enough.”

According to Dr. Shanafelt, there’s been little research into vacation’s impact on physician well-being. However, it is clear that work overload and exhaustion are major problems among American physicians. “Inadequate time off may magnify these challenges.”

Research suggests that physicians suffer more burnout than other US workers even after adjusting for confounders, he said. Extensive evidence shows that burnout in physicians contributes to medical errors and erodes quality of care and patient satisfaction, he added.

For the new study, researchers mailed surveys to 3671 members of the American Medical Association from 2020 to 2021, and 1162 (31.7%) responded. Another 6348 (7.1%) responded to an email survey sent to 90,000 physicians. An analysis suggested the respondents were representative of all US practicing physicians. 

Among 3024 respondents who responded to a subsurvey about vacations, about 40% took more than 15 days of vacation over the past year, about 40% took 6-15 days, and about 20% took 5 or fewer days. 

Fewer than half of physicians said their electronic health record (EHR) inboxes were fully covered by others while they were away. About 70% said they worked while on vacation, with nearly 15% working an hour or more each day.

Emergency physicians were the least likely and anesthesiologists were the most likely to take at least 15 days of vacation per year, according to the study. 

Women were more likely than men to work 30 or more minutes a day on vacation. Physicians aged 65 years and older were more likely to take 15 or more days of vacation per year than those under 35 years.

An adjusted analysis linked complete EHR inbox coverage to lower odds of taking time during vacation to work (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80).

“For many, difficulty finding clinical coverage, lack of EHR inbox coverage, and returning to an overwhelming backlog of EHR inbox work at were identified as barriers to taking vacation,” Dr. Shanafelt said.

Researchers linked lower rates of burnout to taking more than 3 weeks of vacation per year (OR, 0.59-0.66, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 0.40-0.98) vs none. They also linked less burnout to full EHR inbox coverage while on vacation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and more burnout to spending 30 minutes or more on work while on a typical vacation day (OR, 1.58-1.97, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 1.22-2.77). 

Study limitations include the low participation rate and lack of insight into causation. It’s not clear how burnout and less vacation time are related and whether one causes the other, Shanafelt said. “It is possible there are a number of interacting factors rather than a simple, linear relationship.”

In an interview, Lazar J. Greenfield, Jr., MD, PhD, professor and chairman of neurology at UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut, said his department encourages clinicians to plan vacations well ahead of time, and “we make a real strong effort to make sure that people are fully covered and someone has their Epic inbox.”

Dr. Greenfield, who wasn’t involved in the new study, recommended that physicians plan active vacations, so they have less downtime to catch up on work matters. But he acknowledged that stepping away from emails can be difficult, especially when physicians fear pileups of work upon their return or don’t want to annoy patients with tardy responses.

“They have a hard time disengaging from their moral obligations to patients,” he said. “Another issue, particularly in my field of neurology, is that there’s a lot of subspecialties. Finding somebody with the exact subspecialty and expertise to cover a very specific patient population they treat can be really hard.”

The Stanford WellMD Center, Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-being, and American Medical Association funded the study.

Dr. Shanafelt discloses coinventing the Well-Being Index and its derivatives with another study author; Mayo Clinic licensed the Well-Being Index and pays them royalties outside the submitted work. Dr. Shanafelt also reported support for grand rounds, lectures, and advising for healthcare organizations outside the submitted work. Other authors reported personal fees from Marvin Behavioral Health and grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Science Foundation, and Med Ed Solutions. 

Dr. Greenfield had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

About 20% of US physicians took less than 1 week of vacation in the previous year, a new study found. When doctors did go on vacation, 70% reported working on their days off to handle patient-related tasks.

Burnout was more likely among doctors who worked more during vacations and lacked coverage in responding to electronic health messages from patients, according to the cross-sectional study, which was published on January 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.“It’s important to provide physicians with adequate time to disconnect from work and recharge,” said study coauthor Tait Shanafelt, MD, chief wellness officer at Stanford Medicine, in an interview.

The study’s conclusion that most US physicians work on their days off “is a marker of inadequate staffing, suboptimal teamwork, and poorly designed coverage systems,” he added. “Simply allocating people a number of vacation days is not enough.”

According to Dr. Shanafelt, there’s been little research into vacation’s impact on physician well-being. However, it is clear that work overload and exhaustion are major problems among American physicians. “Inadequate time off may magnify these challenges.”

Research suggests that physicians suffer more burnout than other US workers even after adjusting for confounders, he said. Extensive evidence shows that burnout in physicians contributes to medical errors and erodes quality of care and patient satisfaction, he added.

For the new study, researchers mailed surveys to 3671 members of the American Medical Association from 2020 to 2021, and 1162 (31.7%) responded. Another 6348 (7.1%) responded to an email survey sent to 90,000 physicians. An analysis suggested the respondents were representative of all US practicing physicians. 

Among 3024 respondents who responded to a subsurvey about vacations, about 40% took more than 15 days of vacation over the past year, about 40% took 6-15 days, and about 20% took 5 or fewer days. 

Fewer than half of physicians said their electronic health record (EHR) inboxes were fully covered by others while they were away. About 70% said they worked while on vacation, with nearly 15% working an hour or more each day.

Emergency physicians were the least likely and anesthesiologists were the most likely to take at least 15 days of vacation per year, according to the study. 

Women were more likely than men to work 30 or more minutes a day on vacation. Physicians aged 65 years and older were more likely to take 15 or more days of vacation per year than those under 35 years.

An adjusted analysis linked complete EHR inbox coverage to lower odds of taking time during vacation to work (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80).

“For many, difficulty finding clinical coverage, lack of EHR inbox coverage, and returning to an overwhelming backlog of EHR inbox work at were identified as barriers to taking vacation,” Dr. Shanafelt said.

Researchers linked lower rates of burnout to taking more than 3 weeks of vacation per year (OR, 0.59-0.66, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 0.40-0.98) vs none. They also linked less burnout to full EHR inbox coverage while on vacation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and more burnout to spending 30 minutes or more on work while on a typical vacation day (OR, 1.58-1.97, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 1.22-2.77). 

Study limitations include the low participation rate and lack of insight into causation. It’s not clear how burnout and less vacation time are related and whether one causes the other, Shanafelt said. “It is possible there are a number of interacting factors rather than a simple, linear relationship.”

In an interview, Lazar J. Greenfield, Jr., MD, PhD, professor and chairman of neurology at UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut, said his department encourages clinicians to plan vacations well ahead of time, and “we make a real strong effort to make sure that people are fully covered and someone has their Epic inbox.”

Dr. Greenfield, who wasn’t involved in the new study, recommended that physicians plan active vacations, so they have less downtime to catch up on work matters. But he acknowledged that stepping away from emails can be difficult, especially when physicians fear pileups of work upon their return or don’t want to annoy patients with tardy responses.

“They have a hard time disengaging from their moral obligations to patients,” he said. “Another issue, particularly in my field of neurology, is that there’s a lot of subspecialties. Finding somebody with the exact subspecialty and expertise to cover a very specific patient population they treat can be really hard.”

The Stanford WellMD Center, Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-being, and American Medical Association funded the study.

Dr. Shanafelt discloses coinventing the Well-Being Index and its derivatives with another study author; Mayo Clinic licensed the Well-Being Index and pays them royalties outside the submitted work. Dr. Shanafelt also reported support for grand rounds, lectures, and advising for healthcare organizations outside the submitted work. Other authors reported personal fees from Marvin Behavioral Health and grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Science Foundation, and Med Ed Solutions. 

Dr. Greenfield had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

About 20% of US physicians took less than 1 week of vacation in the previous year, a new study found. When doctors did go on vacation, 70% reported working on their days off to handle patient-related tasks.

Burnout was more likely among doctors who worked more during vacations and lacked coverage in responding to electronic health messages from patients, according to the cross-sectional study, which was published on January 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.“It’s important to provide physicians with adequate time to disconnect from work and recharge,” said study coauthor Tait Shanafelt, MD, chief wellness officer at Stanford Medicine, in an interview.

The study’s conclusion that most US physicians work on their days off “is a marker of inadequate staffing, suboptimal teamwork, and poorly designed coverage systems,” he added. “Simply allocating people a number of vacation days is not enough.”

According to Dr. Shanafelt, there’s been little research into vacation’s impact on physician well-being. However, it is clear that work overload and exhaustion are major problems among American physicians. “Inadequate time off may magnify these challenges.”

Research suggests that physicians suffer more burnout than other US workers even after adjusting for confounders, he said. Extensive evidence shows that burnout in physicians contributes to medical errors and erodes quality of care and patient satisfaction, he added.

For the new study, researchers mailed surveys to 3671 members of the American Medical Association from 2020 to 2021, and 1162 (31.7%) responded. Another 6348 (7.1%) responded to an email survey sent to 90,000 physicians. An analysis suggested the respondents were representative of all US practicing physicians. 

Among 3024 respondents who responded to a subsurvey about vacations, about 40% took more than 15 days of vacation over the past year, about 40% took 6-15 days, and about 20% took 5 or fewer days. 

Fewer than half of physicians said their electronic health record (EHR) inboxes were fully covered by others while they were away. About 70% said they worked while on vacation, with nearly 15% working an hour or more each day.

Emergency physicians were the least likely and anesthesiologists were the most likely to take at least 15 days of vacation per year, according to the study. 

Women were more likely than men to work 30 or more minutes a day on vacation. Physicians aged 65 years and older were more likely to take 15 or more days of vacation per year than those under 35 years.

An adjusted analysis linked complete EHR inbox coverage to lower odds of taking time during vacation to work (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80).

“For many, difficulty finding clinical coverage, lack of EHR inbox coverage, and returning to an overwhelming backlog of EHR inbox work at were identified as barriers to taking vacation,” Dr. Shanafelt said.

Researchers linked lower rates of burnout to taking more than 3 weeks of vacation per year (OR, 0.59-0.66, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 0.40-0.98) vs none. They also linked less burnout to full EHR inbox coverage while on vacation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and more burnout to spending 30 minutes or more on work while on a typical vacation day (OR, 1.58-1.97, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 1.22-2.77). 

Study limitations include the low participation rate and lack of insight into causation. It’s not clear how burnout and less vacation time are related and whether one causes the other, Shanafelt said. “It is possible there are a number of interacting factors rather than a simple, linear relationship.”

In an interview, Lazar J. Greenfield, Jr., MD, PhD, professor and chairman of neurology at UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut, said his department encourages clinicians to plan vacations well ahead of time, and “we make a real strong effort to make sure that people are fully covered and someone has their Epic inbox.”

Dr. Greenfield, who wasn’t involved in the new study, recommended that physicians plan active vacations, so they have less downtime to catch up on work matters. But he acknowledged that stepping away from emails can be difficult, especially when physicians fear pileups of work upon their return or don’t want to annoy patients with tardy responses.

“They have a hard time disengaging from their moral obligations to patients,” he said. “Another issue, particularly in my field of neurology, is that there’s a lot of subspecialties. Finding somebody with the exact subspecialty and expertise to cover a very specific patient population they treat can be really hard.”

The Stanford WellMD Center, Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-being, and American Medical Association funded the study.

Dr. Shanafelt discloses coinventing the Well-Being Index and its derivatives with another study author; Mayo Clinic licensed the Well-Being Index and pays them royalties outside the submitted work. Dr. Shanafelt also reported support for grand rounds, lectures, and advising for healthcare organizations outside the submitted work. Other authors reported personal fees from Marvin Behavioral Health and grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Science Foundation, and Med Ed Solutions. 

Dr. Greenfield had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

The relationship between lipid levels and the development of dementia is an evolving but confusing landscape.

“This is an incredibly complex area, and there really isn’t a clear consensus on this subject because different lipid classes reflect different things,” according to Betsy Mills, PhD, assistant director of aging and Alzheimer’s prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation.

Some studies suggest that excessive lipid levels may increase the risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Others imply that elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol or even triglycerides may offer some protection against subsequent dementia whereas higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, hitherto thought to be protective, may have a deleterious effect.

“It depends on what lipids you’re measuring, what you’re using to measure those lipids, what age the person is, and multiple other factors,” Dr. Mills told this news organization.

Teasing out the variables and potential mechanisms for the association between lipids and dementia risk necessitates understanding the role that lipids play in the healthy brain, the negative impact of brain lipid dysregulation, and the interplay between cholesterol in the central nervous system (CNS) and the cholesterol in the rest of the body.

 

Beyond Amyloid

The role of lipids in AD risk has historically been “overlooked,” says Scott Hansen, PhD, associate professor, Department of Molecular Medicine, Herbert Wertheim UF Scripps Institute for Biomedical Innovation and Technology, Florida.

“The common narrative is that amyloid is the culprit in AD and certainly that’s the case in familial AD,” he told this news organization. “It’s been assumed that because amyloid deposits are also found in the brains of people with late-onset AD — which is the vast majority of cases — amyloid is the cause, but that’s not clear at all.”

The “limited clinical success” of aducanumab, its “extremely small efficacy” — despite its obvious success in eradicating the amyloid plaques — suggests there’s “much more to the story than amyloid.”

He and a growing community of scientists recognize the role of inflammation and lipids. “The major finding of my lab is that cholesterol actually drives the synthesis of amyloid via inflammation. In other words, amyloid is downstream of cholesterol. Cholesterol drives the inflammation, and the inflammation drives amyloid,” he said.
 

‘Lipid Invasion Model’

Because the brain is an incredibly lipid-rich organ, Dr. Mills said that “any dysregulation in lipid homeostasis will impact the brain because cholesterol is needed for the myelin sheaths, cell membranes, and other functions.”

A healthy brain relies upon healthy lipid regulation, and “since the first description of AD over 100 years ago, the disease has been associated with altered lipids in the brain,” Dr. Hansen noted.

He cited the “ lipid invasion model” as a way of understanding brain lipid dysregulation. This hypothesis posits that AD is driven by external lipids that enter the brain as a result of damage to the blood-brain barrier (BBB).

“Cholesterol in the brain and cholesterol in the periphery — meaning, in the rest of the body, outside the brain — are separate,” Dr. Hansen explained. “The brain produces its own cholesterol and keeps tight control of it.”

Under normal circumstances, cholesterol from the diet doesn’t enter the brain. “Each pool of cholesterol — in the brain and in the periphery — has its own distinct regulatory mechanisms, target cells, and transport mechanisms.”

When the BBB has been compromised, it becomes permeable, allowing LDL cholesterol to enter the brain, said Dr. Hansen. Then the brain’s own lipoproteins transport the invading cholesterol, allowing it to be taken up by neurons. In turn, this causes neuronal amyloid levels to rise, ultimately leading to the creation of amyloid-b plaques. It also plays a role in tau phosphorylation. Both are key features of AD pathology.

Elevated levels of cholesterol and other lipids have been found in amyloid plaques, Dr. Hansen noted. Moreover, studies of brains of patients with AD have pointed to BBB damage.

And the risk factors for AD overlap with the risk factors for damage to the BBB (such as, aging, brain trauma, hypertension, stress, sleep deprivation, smoking, excess alcohol, obesity, diabetes, and APOE4 genotype), according to the lipid invasion model paper cited by Dr. Hansen.
 

‘Chicken and Egg’

“There is a strong link between the brain and the heart, and we know that cardiovascular risk factors have an overlap with dementia risk factors — especially vascular dementia,” said Dr. Mills. 

She explained that an atherogenic lipid profile results in narrowing of the arteries, with less blood reaching the brain. “This can lead to stress in the brain, which drives inflammation and pathology.”

But cholesterol itself plays an important role in inflammation, Dr. Hansen said. In the periphery, it is “part of an integral response to tissue damage and infection.”

In the brain, once cholesterol is synthesized by the astrocytes, it is transported to neurons via the apolipoprotein E (APOE) protein, which plays a role in brain cholesterol homeostasis, Dr. Mills explained. Those with the ε4 allele of APOE (APOE4) tend to have faultier transport and storage of lipids in the brain, relative to the other APOE variants.

It’s known that individuals with APOE4 are particularly vulnerable to late-onset AD, Dr. Hansen observed. By contrast, APOE2 has a more protective effect. “Most people have APOE3, which is ‘in between,’ ” he said.

When there is neuronal uptake of “invading cholesterol,” not only is amyloid produced but also neuroinflammatory cytokines, further driving inflammation. A vicious cycle ensues: Cholesterol induces cytokine release; and cytokine release, in turn, induces cholesterol synthesis — which “suggests an autocatalytic function of cholesterol in the escalation of inflammation,” Dr. Hansen suggested. He noted that permeability of the BBB also allows inflammatory cytokines from elsewhere in the body to invade the brain, further driving inflammation.

Dr. Mills elaborated: “We know that generally, in dementia, there appear to be some changes in cholesterol metabolism in the brain, but it’s a chicken-and-egg question. We know that as the disease progresses, neurons are dying and getting remodeled. Do these changes have to do with the degenerative process, or are the changes in the cholesterol metabolism actually driving the degenerative disease process? It’s probably a combination, but it’s unclear at this point.”
 

Lipids in Plasma vs CSF

Dr. Mills explained that HDL particles in the brain differ from those in the periphery. “In the CNS, you have ‘HDL-like particles,’ which are similar in size and composition [to HDL in the periphery] but aren’t the same particles.” The brain itself generates HDL-like lipoproteins, which are produced by astrocytes and other glial cells and found in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

Dyslipidemia in the periphery can be a marker for cardiovascular pathology. In the brain, “it can be an indication that there is active damage going on, depending on which compartment you’re looking at.”

She noted that plasma lipid levels and brain CSF lipid levels are “very different.” Research suggests that HDL in the CSF exhibits similar heterogeneity to plasma HDL, but these CSF lipoproteins present at 100-fold lower concentrations, compared to plasma HDL and have unique combinations of protein subpopulations. Lipidomics analysis studies show that these compartments “get very different readings, in terms of the predominant lipid disease state, and they are regulated differently from the way lipids in the periphery are regulated.” 

In the brain, the cholesterol “needs to get shuttled from glial cells to neurons,” so defects in the transport process can disrupt overall brain homeostasis, said Dr. Mills. But since the brain system is separate from the peripheral system, measuring plasma lipids is more likely to point to cardiovascular risks, while changes reflected in CSF lipids are “more indicative of alteration in lipid homeostasis in the brain.”
 

HDL and Triglycerides: A Complicated Story

Dr. Mills noted that HDL in the periphery is “very complicated,” and the idea that HDL, as a measure on its own, is “necessarily ‘good’ isn’t particularly informative.” Rather, HDL is “extremely heterogeneous, very diverse, has different lipid compositions, different classes, and different modifications.” For example, like oxidized LDL, oxidized HDL is also “bad,” preventing the HDL from having protective functions.

Similarly, the apolipoproteins associated with HDL can affect the function of the HDL. “Our understanding of the HDL-like particles in the CNS is limited, but we do understand the APOE4 link,” Dr. Mills said. “It seems that the HDL-like particles containing APOE2 or APOE3 are larger and are more effective at transferring the lipids and cholesterol linked to them relative to APOE4-containing particles.” 

Because HDL is more complex than simply being “good,” measuring HDL doesn’t “give you the full story,” said Dr. Mills. She speculates that this may be why there are studies suggesting that high levels of HDL might not have protective benefits and might even be detrimental. This makes it difficult to look at population studies, where the different subclasses of HDL are not necessarily captured in depth. 

Dr. Mills pointed to another confounding factor, which is that much of the risk for the development of AD appears to be related to the interaction of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides. “When you look at each of these individually, you get a lot of heterogeneity, and it’s unclear what’s driving what,” she said.

An advantage of observational studies is that they give information about which of these markers are associated with trends and disease risks in specific groups vs others. 

“For example, higher levels of triglycerides are associated with cardiovascular risk more in women, relative to men,” she said. And the triglyceride-to-HDL ratio seems “particularly robust” as a measure of cardiovascular health and risk. 

The interpretation of associations with triglycerides can be “tricky” and “confusing” because results differ so much between studies, she said. “There are differences between middle age and older age, which have to do with age-related changes in metabolism and lipid metabolism and not necessarily that the markers are indicating something different,” she said.

Some research has suggested that triglycerides may have a protective effect against dementia, noted Uma Naidoo, MD, director of nutritional and lifestyle psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, and director of nutritional psychiatry at MGH Academy.

This may be because the brain “runs mostly on energy from burning triglycerides,” suggested Dr. Naidoo, author of the books Calm Your Mind With Food and This Is Your Brain on Food.

In addition, having higher levels of triglycerides may be linked with having overall healthier behaviors, Dr. Naidoo told this news organization.

Dr. Mills said that in middle-aged individuals, high levels of LDL-C and triglycerides are “often indicative of more atherogenic particles and risk to cardiovascular health, which is a generally negative trajectory. But in older individuals, things become more complicated because there are differences in terms of clearance of some of these particles, tissue clearance and distribution, and nutrient status. So for older individuals, it seems that fluctuations in either direction—either too high or too low—tend to be more informative that some overall dysregulation is going on the system.” 

She emphasized that, in this “emerging area, looking at only one or two studies is confusing. But if you look at the spectrum of studies, you can see a pattern, which is that the regulation gets ‘off,’ as people age.”

 

The Potential Role of Statins

Dr. Mills speculated that there may be “neuroprotective benefits for some of the statins which appear to be related to cardiovascular benefits. But at this point, we don’t have any clear data whether statins actually directly impact brain cholesterol, since it’s a separate pool.”

They could help “by increasing blood flow and reducing narrowing of the arteries, but any direct impact on the brain is still under investigation.”

Dr. Hansen pointed to research suggesting statins taken at midlife appear to be cardioprotective and may be protective of brain health as well, whereas statins initiated in older age do not appear to have these benefits.

He speculated that one reason statins seem less helpful when initiated later in life is that the BBB has already been damaged by systemic inflammation in the periphery, and the neuroinflammatory process resulting in neuronal destruction is already underway. “I think statins aren’t going to fix that problem, so although lowering cholesterol can be helpful in some respects, it might be too late to affect cognition because the nerves have already died and won’t grow back.”
 

Can Dietary Approaches Help?

Dr. Naidoo said that when looking at neurologic and psychiatric disease, “it’s important to think about the ‘long game’ — how can we improve our blood and cardiovascular health earlier in life to help potentiate healthy aging?”

From a nutritional psychiatry standpoint, Dr. Naidoo focuses on nourishing the gut microbiome and decreasing inflammation. “A healthy and balanced microbiome supports cognition, while the composition of gut bacteria is actually drastically different in patients with neurological diseases, such as AD.” 

She recommends a nutrient-dense, anti-inflammatory diet including probiotic-rich foods (such as kimchi, sauerkraut, plain yogurt, and miso). Moreover, “the quality and structure of our fatty acids may be relevant as well: Increasing our intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids and avoiding processed fats like trans fats and hydrogenated oils may benefit our overall brain health.”

Dr. Naidoo recommends extra-virgin olive oil as a source of healthy fat. Its consumption is linked to lower incidence of AD by way of encouraging autophagy, which she calls “our own process of “cellular cleanup.’”

Dr. Naidoo believes that clinicians’ guidance to patients should “focus on healthy nutrition and other lifestyle practices, such as exercise, outdoor time, good sleep, and stress reduction.” 

Dr. Mills notes the importance of omega-3 fatty acids, such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) , for brain health. “DHA is a major lipid component of neuronal membranes,” she said. “Because of inefficiencies in metabolism with APOE4, people tend to metabolize more of the lipids on the membranes themselves, so they have higher lipid membrane turnover and a greater need to supplement. Supplementing particularly through diet, with foods such as fatty fish rich in omega-3, can help boost the levels to help keep neuronal membranes intact.”
 

What This Means for the Clinician

“At this point, we see all of these associations between lipids and dementia, but we haven’t worked out exactly what it means on the individual level for an individual patient,” said Dr. Mills. Certainly, the picture is complex, and the understanding is growing and shifting. “The clinical applications remain unclear.”

One potential clinical take-home is that clinicians might consider tracking lipid levels over time. “If you follow a patient and see an increase or decrease [in lipid levels], that can be informative.” Looking at ratios of lipids might be more useful than looking only at a change in a single measure. “If you see trends in a variety of measures that track with one another, it might be more of a sign that something is potentially wrong.” 

Whether the patient should first try a lifestyle intervention or might need medication is a “personalized clinical decision, depending on the individual, their risk factors, and how their levels are going,” said Dr. Mills. 

Dr. Mills, Dr. Hansen, and Dr. Naidoo declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The relationship between lipid levels and the development of dementia is an evolving but confusing landscape.

“This is an incredibly complex area, and there really isn’t a clear consensus on this subject because different lipid classes reflect different things,” according to Betsy Mills, PhD, assistant director of aging and Alzheimer’s prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation.

Some studies suggest that excessive lipid levels may increase the risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Others imply that elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol or even triglycerides may offer some protection against subsequent dementia whereas higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, hitherto thought to be protective, may have a deleterious effect.

“It depends on what lipids you’re measuring, what you’re using to measure those lipids, what age the person is, and multiple other factors,” Dr. Mills told this news organization.

Teasing out the variables and potential mechanisms for the association between lipids and dementia risk necessitates understanding the role that lipids play in the healthy brain, the negative impact of brain lipid dysregulation, and the interplay between cholesterol in the central nervous system (CNS) and the cholesterol in the rest of the body.

 

Beyond Amyloid

The role of lipids in AD risk has historically been “overlooked,” says Scott Hansen, PhD, associate professor, Department of Molecular Medicine, Herbert Wertheim UF Scripps Institute for Biomedical Innovation and Technology, Florida.

“The common narrative is that amyloid is the culprit in AD and certainly that’s the case in familial AD,” he told this news organization. “It’s been assumed that because amyloid deposits are also found in the brains of people with late-onset AD — which is the vast majority of cases — amyloid is the cause, but that’s not clear at all.”

The “limited clinical success” of aducanumab, its “extremely small efficacy” — despite its obvious success in eradicating the amyloid plaques — suggests there’s “much more to the story than amyloid.”

He and a growing community of scientists recognize the role of inflammation and lipids. “The major finding of my lab is that cholesterol actually drives the synthesis of amyloid via inflammation. In other words, amyloid is downstream of cholesterol. Cholesterol drives the inflammation, and the inflammation drives amyloid,” he said.
 

‘Lipid Invasion Model’

Because the brain is an incredibly lipid-rich organ, Dr. Mills said that “any dysregulation in lipid homeostasis will impact the brain because cholesterol is needed for the myelin sheaths, cell membranes, and other functions.”

A healthy brain relies upon healthy lipid regulation, and “since the first description of AD over 100 years ago, the disease has been associated with altered lipids in the brain,” Dr. Hansen noted.

He cited the “ lipid invasion model” as a way of understanding brain lipid dysregulation. This hypothesis posits that AD is driven by external lipids that enter the brain as a result of damage to the blood-brain barrier (BBB).

“Cholesterol in the brain and cholesterol in the periphery — meaning, in the rest of the body, outside the brain — are separate,” Dr. Hansen explained. “The brain produces its own cholesterol and keeps tight control of it.”

Under normal circumstances, cholesterol from the diet doesn’t enter the brain. “Each pool of cholesterol — in the brain and in the periphery — has its own distinct regulatory mechanisms, target cells, and transport mechanisms.”

When the BBB has been compromised, it becomes permeable, allowing LDL cholesterol to enter the brain, said Dr. Hansen. Then the brain’s own lipoproteins transport the invading cholesterol, allowing it to be taken up by neurons. In turn, this causes neuronal amyloid levels to rise, ultimately leading to the creation of amyloid-b plaques. It also plays a role in tau phosphorylation. Both are key features of AD pathology.

Elevated levels of cholesterol and other lipids have been found in amyloid plaques, Dr. Hansen noted. Moreover, studies of brains of patients with AD have pointed to BBB damage.

And the risk factors for AD overlap with the risk factors for damage to the BBB (such as, aging, brain trauma, hypertension, stress, sleep deprivation, smoking, excess alcohol, obesity, diabetes, and APOE4 genotype), according to the lipid invasion model paper cited by Dr. Hansen.
 

‘Chicken and Egg’

“There is a strong link between the brain and the heart, and we know that cardiovascular risk factors have an overlap with dementia risk factors — especially vascular dementia,” said Dr. Mills. 

She explained that an atherogenic lipid profile results in narrowing of the arteries, with less blood reaching the brain. “This can lead to stress in the brain, which drives inflammation and pathology.”

But cholesterol itself plays an important role in inflammation, Dr. Hansen said. In the periphery, it is “part of an integral response to tissue damage and infection.”

In the brain, once cholesterol is synthesized by the astrocytes, it is transported to neurons via the apolipoprotein E (APOE) protein, which plays a role in brain cholesterol homeostasis, Dr. Mills explained. Those with the ε4 allele of APOE (APOE4) tend to have faultier transport and storage of lipids in the brain, relative to the other APOE variants.

It’s known that individuals with APOE4 are particularly vulnerable to late-onset AD, Dr. Hansen observed. By contrast, APOE2 has a more protective effect. “Most people have APOE3, which is ‘in between,’ ” he said.

When there is neuronal uptake of “invading cholesterol,” not only is amyloid produced but also neuroinflammatory cytokines, further driving inflammation. A vicious cycle ensues: Cholesterol induces cytokine release; and cytokine release, in turn, induces cholesterol synthesis — which “suggests an autocatalytic function of cholesterol in the escalation of inflammation,” Dr. Hansen suggested. He noted that permeability of the BBB also allows inflammatory cytokines from elsewhere in the body to invade the brain, further driving inflammation.

Dr. Mills elaborated: “We know that generally, in dementia, there appear to be some changes in cholesterol metabolism in the brain, but it’s a chicken-and-egg question. We know that as the disease progresses, neurons are dying and getting remodeled. Do these changes have to do with the degenerative process, or are the changes in the cholesterol metabolism actually driving the degenerative disease process? It’s probably a combination, but it’s unclear at this point.”
 

Lipids in Plasma vs CSF

Dr. Mills explained that HDL particles in the brain differ from those in the periphery. “In the CNS, you have ‘HDL-like particles,’ which are similar in size and composition [to HDL in the periphery] but aren’t the same particles.” The brain itself generates HDL-like lipoproteins, which are produced by astrocytes and other glial cells and found in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

Dyslipidemia in the periphery can be a marker for cardiovascular pathology. In the brain, “it can be an indication that there is active damage going on, depending on which compartment you’re looking at.”

She noted that plasma lipid levels and brain CSF lipid levels are “very different.” Research suggests that HDL in the CSF exhibits similar heterogeneity to plasma HDL, but these CSF lipoproteins present at 100-fold lower concentrations, compared to plasma HDL and have unique combinations of protein subpopulations. Lipidomics analysis studies show that these compartments “get very different readings, in terms of the predominant lipid disease state, and they are regulated differently from the way lipids in the periphery are regulated.” 

In the brain, the cholesterol “needs to get shuttled from glial cells to neurons,” so defects in the transport process can disrupt overall brain homeostasis, said Dr. Mills. But since the brain system is separate from the peripheral system, measuring plasma lipids is more likely to point to cardiovascular risks, while changes reflected in CSF lipids are “more indicative of alteration in lipid homeostasis in the brain.”
 

HDL and Triglycerides: A Complicated Story

Dr. Mills noted that HDL in the periphery is “very complicated,” and the idea that HDL, as a measure on its own, is “necessarily ‘good’ isn’t particularly informative.” Rather, HDL is “extremely heterogeneous, very diverse, has different lipid compositions, different classes, and different modifications.” For example, like oxidized LDL, oxidized HDL is also “bad,” preventing the HDL from having protective functions.

Similarly, the apolipoproteins associated with HDL can affect the function of the HDL. “Our understanding of the HDL-like particles in the CNS is limited, but we do understand the APOE4 link,” Dr. Mills said. “It seems that the HDL-like particles containing APOE2 or APOE3 are larger and are more effective at transferring the lipids and cholesterol linked to them relative to APOE4-containing particles.” 

Because HDL is more complex than simply being “good,” measuring HDL doesn’t “give you the full story,” said Dr. Mills. She speculates that this may be why there are studies suggesting that high levels of HDL might not have protective benefits and might even be detrimental. This makes it difficult to look at population studies, where the different subclasses of HDL are not necessarily captured in depth. 

Dr. Mills pointed to another confounding factor, which is that much of the risk for the development of AD appears to be related to the interaction of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides. “When you look at each of these individually, you get a lot of heterogeneity, and it’s unclear what’s driving what,” she said.

An advantage of observational studies is that they give information about which of these markers are associated with trends and disease risks in specific groups vs others. 

“For example, higher levels of triglycerides are associated with cardiovascular risk more in women, relative to men,” she said. And the triglyceride-to-HDL ratio seems “particularly robust” as a measure of cardiovascular health and risk. 

The interpretation of associations with triglycerides can be “tricky” and “confusing” because results differ so much between studies, she said. “There are differences between middle age and older age, which have to do with age-related changes in metabolism and lipid metabolism and not necessarily that the markers are indicating something different,” she said.

Some research has suggested that triglycerides may have a protective effect against dementia, noted Uma Naidoo, MD, director of nutritional and lifestyle psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, and director of nutritional psychiatry at MGH Academy.

This may be because the brain “runs mostly on energy from burning triglycerides,” suggested Dr. Naidoo, author of the books Calm Your Mind With Food and This Is Your Brain on Food.

In addition, having higher levels of triglycerides may be linked with having overall healthier behaviors, Dr. Naidoo told this news organization.

Dr. Mills said that in middle-aged individuals, high levels of LDL-C and triglycerides are “often indicative of more atherogenic particles and risk to cardiovascular health, which is a generally negative trajectory. But in older individuals, things become more complicated because there are differences in terms of clearance of some of these particles, tissue clearance and distribution, and nutrient status. So for older individuals, it seems that fluctuations in either direction—either too high or too low—tend to be more informative that some overall dysregulation is going on the system.” 

She emphasized that, in this “emerging area, looking at only one or two studies is confusing. But if you look at the spectrum of studies, you can see a pattern, which is that the regulation gets ‘off,’ as people age.”

 

The Potential Role of Statins

Dr. Mills speculated that there may be “neuroprotective benefits for some of the statins which appear to be related to cardiovascular benefits. But at this point, we don’t have any clear data whether statins actually directly impact brain cholesterol, since it’s a separate pool.”

They could help “by increasing blood flow and reducing narrowing of the arteries, but any direct impact on the brain is still under investigation.”

Dr. Hansen pointed to research suggesting statins taken at midlife appear to be cardioprotective and may be protective of brain health as well, whereas statins initiated in older age do not appear to have these benefits.

He speculated that one reason statins seem less helpful when initiated later in life is that the BBB has already been damaged by systemic inflammation in the periphery, and the neuroinflammatory process resulting in neuronal destruction is already underway. “I think statins aren’t going to fix that problem, so although lowering cholesterol can be helpful in some respects, it might be too late to affect cognition because the nerves have already died and won’t grow back.”
 

Can Dietary Approaches Help?

Dr. Naidoo said that when looking at neurologic and psychiatric disease, “it’s important to think about the ‘long game’ — how can we improve our blood and cardiovascular health earlier in life to help potentiate healthy aging?”

From a nutritional psychiatry standpoint, Dr. Naidoo focuses on nourishing the gut microbiome and decreasing inflammation. “A healthy and balanced microbiome supports cognition, while the composition of gut bacteria is actually drastically different in patients with neurological diseases, such as AD.” 

She recommends a nutrient-dense, anti-inflammatory diet including probiotic-rich foods (such as kimchi, sauerkraut, plain yogurt, and miso). Moreover, “the quality and structure of our fatty acids may be relevant as well: Increasing our intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids and avoiding processed fats like trans fats and hydrogenated oils may benefit our overall brain health.”

Dr. Naidoo recommends extra-virgin olive oil as a source of healthy fat. Its consumption is linked to lower incidence of AD by way of encouraging autophagy, which she calls “our own process of “cellular cleanup.’”

Dr. Naidoo believes that clinicians’ guidance to patients should “focus on healthy nutrition and other lifestyle practices, such as exercise, outdoor time, good sleep, and stress reduction.” 

Dr. Mills notes the importance of omega-3 fatty acids, such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) , for brain health. “DHA is a major lipid component of neuronal membranes,” she said. “Because of inefficiencies in metabolism with APOE4, people tend to metabolize more of the lipids on the membranes themselves, so they have higher lipid membrane turnover and a greater need to supplement. Supplementing particularly through diet, with foods such as fatty fish rich in omega-3, can help boost the levels to help keep neuronal membranes intact.”
 

What This Means for the Clinician

“At this point, we see all of these associations between lipids and dementia, but we haven’t worked out exactly what it means on the individual level for an individual patient,” said Dr. Mills. Certainly, the picture is complex, and the understanding is growing and shifting. “The clinical applications remain unclear.”

One potential clinical take-home is that clinicians might consider tracking lipid levels over time. “If you follow a patient and see an increase or decrease [in lipid levels], that can be informative.” Looking at ratios of lipids might be more useful than looking only at a change in a single measure. “If you see trends in a variety of measures that track with one another, it might be more of a sign that something is potentially wrong.” 

Whether the patient should first try a lifestyle intervention or might need medication is a “personalized clinical decision, depending on the individual, their risk factors, and how their levels are going,” said Dr. Mills. 

Dr. Mills, Dr. Hansen, and Dr. Naidoo declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The relationship between lipid levels and the development of dementia is an evolving but confusing landscape.

“This is an incredibly complex area, and there really isn’t a clear consensus on this subject because different lipid classes reflect different things,” according to Betsy Mills, PhD, assistant director of aging and Alzheimer’s prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation.

Some studies suggest that excessive lipid levels may increase the risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Others imply that elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol or even triglycerides may offer some protection against subsequent dementia whereas higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, hitherto thought to be protective, may have a deleterious effect.

“It depends on what lipids you’re measuring, what you’re using to measure those lipids, what age the person is, and multiple other factors,” Dr. Mills told this news organization.

Teasing out the variables and potential mechanisms for the association between lipids and dementia risk necessitates understanding the role that lipids play in the healthy brain, the negative impact of brain lipid dysregulation, and the interplay between cholesterol in the central nervous system (CNS) and the cholesterol in the rest of the body.

 

Beyond Amyloid

The role of lipids in AD risk has historically been “overlooked,” says Scott Hansen, PhD, associate professor, Department of Molecular Medicine, Herbert Wertheim UF Scripps Institute for Biomedical Innovation and Technology, Florida.

“The common narrative is that amyloid is the culprit in AD and certainly that’s the case in familial AD,” he told this news organization. “It’s been assumed that because amyloid deposits are also found in the brains of people with late-onset AD — which is the vast majority of cases — amyloid is the cause, but that’s not clear at all.”

The “limited clinical success” of aducanumab, its “extremely small efficacy” — despite its obvious success in eradicating the amyloid plaques — suggests there’s “much more to the story than amyloid.”

He and a growing community of scientists recognize the role of inflammation and lipids. “The major finding of my lab is that cholesterol actually drives the synthesis of amyloid via inflammation. In other words, amyloid is downstream of cholesterol. Cholesterol drives the inflammation, and the inflammation drives amyloid,” he said.
 

‘Lipid Invasion Model’

Because the brain is an incredibly lipid-rich organ, Dr. Mills said that “any dysregulation in lipid homeostasis will impact the brain because cholesterol is needed for the myelin sheaths, cell membranes, and other functions.”

A healthy brain relies upon healthy lipid regulation, and “since the first description of AD over 100 years ago, the disease has been associated with altered lipids in the brain,” Dr. Hansen noted.

He cited the “ lipid invasion model” as a way of understanding brain lipid dysregulation. This hypothesis posits that AD is driven by external lipids that enter the brain as a result of damage to the blood-brain barrier (BBB).

“Cholesterol in the brain and cholesterol in the periphery — meaning, in the rest of the body, outside the brain — are separate,” Dr. Hansen explained. “The brain produces its own cholesterol and keeps tight control of it.”

Under normal circumstances, cholesterol from the diet doesn’t enter the brain. “Each pool of cholesterol — in the brain and in the periphery — has its own distinct regulatory mechanisms, target cells, and transport mechanisms.”

When the BBB has been compromised, it becomes permeable, allowing LDL cholesterol to enter the brain, said Dr. Hansen. Then the brain’s own lipoproteins transport the invading cholesterol, allowing it to be taken up by neurons. In turn, this causes neuronal amyloid levels to rise, ultimately leading to the creation of amyloid-b plaques. It also plays a role in tau phosphorylation. Both are key features of AD pathology.

Elevated levels of cholesterol and other lipids have been found in amyloid plaques, Dr. Hansen noted. Moreover, studies of brains of patients with AD have pointed to BBB damage.

And the risk factors for AD overlap with the risk factors for damage to the BBB (such as, aging, brain trauma, hypertension, stress, sleep deprivation, smoking, excess alcohol, obesity, diabetes, and APOE4 genotype), according to the lipid invasion model paper cited by Dr. Hansen.
 

‘Chicken and Egg’

“There is a strong link between the brain and the heart, and we know that cardiovascular risk factors have an overlap with dementia risk factors — especially vascular dementia,” said Dr. Mills. 

She explained that an atherogenic lipid profile results in narrowing of the arteries, with less blood reaching the brain. “This can lead to stress in the brain, which drives inflammation and pathology.”

But cholesterol itself plays an important role in inflammation, Dr. Hansen said. In the periphery, it is “part of an integral response to tissue damage and infection.”

In the brain, once cholesterol is synthesized by the astrocytes, it is transported to neurons via the apolipoprotein E (APOE) protein, which plays a role in brain cholesterol homeostasis, Dr. Mills explained. Those with the ε4 allele of APOE (APOE4) tend to have faultier transport and storage of lipids in the brain, relative to the other APOE variants.

It’s known that individuals with APOE4 are particularly vulnerable to late-onset AD, Dr. Hansen observed. By contrast, APOE2 has a more protective effect. “Most people have APOE3, which is ‘in between,’ ” he said.

When there is neuronal uptake of “invading cholesterol,” not only is amyloid produced but also neuroinflammatory cytokines, further driving inflammation. A vicious cycle ensues: Cholesterol induces cytokine release; and cytokine release, in turn, induces cholesterol synthesis — which “suggests an autocatalytic function of cholesterol in the escalation of inflammation,” Dr. Hansen suggested. He noted that permeability of the BBB also allows inflammatory cytokines from elsewhere in the body to invade the brain, further driving inflammation.

Dr. Mills elaborated: “We know that generally, in dementia, there appear to be some changes in cholesterol metabolism in the brain, but it’s a chicken-and-egg question. We know that as the disease progresses, neurons are dying and getting remodeled. Do these changes have to do with the degenerative process, or are the changes in the cholesterol metabolism actually driving the degenerative disease process? It’s probably a combination, but it’s unclear at this point.”
 

Lipids in Plasma vs CSF

Dr. Mills explained that HDL particles in the brain differ from those in the periphery. “In the CNS, you have ‘HDL-like particles,’ which are similar in size and composition [to HDL in the periphery] but aren’t the same particles.” The brain itself generates HDL-like lipoproteins, which are produced by astrocytes and other glial cells and found in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

Dyslipidemia in the periphery can be a marker for cardiovascular pathology. In the brain, “it can be an indication that there is active damage going on, depending on which compartment you’re looking at.”

She noted that plasma lipid levels and brain CSF lipid levels are “very different.” Research suggests that HDL in the CSF exhibits similar heterogeneity to plasma HDL, but these CSF lipoproteins present at 100-fold lower concentrations, compared to plasma HDL and have unique combinations of protein subpopulations. Lipidomics analysis studies show that these compartments “get very different readings, in terms of the predominant lipid disease state, and they are regulated differently from the way lipids in the periphery are regulated.” 

In the brain, the cholesterol “needs to get shuttled from glial cells to neurons,” so defects in the transport process can disrupt overall brain homeostasis, said Dr. Mills. But since the brain system is separate from the peripheral system, measuring plasma lipids is more likely to point to cardiovascular risks, while changes reflected in CSF lipids are “more indicative of alteration in lipid homeostasis in the brain.”
 

HDL and Triglycerides: A Complicated Story

Dr. Mills noted that HDL in the periphery is “very complicated,” and the idea that HDL, as a measure on its own, is “necessarily ‘good’ isn’t particularly informative.” Rather, HDL is “extremely heterogeneous, very diverse, has different lipid compositions, different classes, and different modifications.” For example, like oxidized LDL, oxidized HDL is also “bad,” preventing the HDL from having protective functions.

Similarly, the apolipoproteins associated with HDL can affect the function of the HDL. “Our understanding of the HDL-like particles in the CNS is limited, but we do understand the APOE4 link,” Dr. Mills said. “It seems that the HDL-like particles containing APOE2 or APOE3 are larger and are more effective at transferring the lipids and cholesterol linked to them relative to APOE4-containing particles.” 

Because HDL is more complex than simply being “good,” measuring HDL doesn’t “give you the full story,” said Dr. Mills. She speculates that this may be why there are studies suggesting that high levels of HDL might not have protective benefits and might even be detrimental. This makes it difficult to look at population studies, where the different subclasses of HDL are not necessarily captured in depth. 

Dr. Mills pointed to another confounding factor, which is that much of the risk for the development of AD appears to be related to the interaction of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides. “When you look at each of these individually, you get a lot of heterogeneity, and it’s unclear what’s driving what,” she said.

An advantage of observational studies is that they give information about which of these markers are associated with trends and disease risks in specific groups vs others. 

“For example, higher levels of triglycerides are associated with cardiovascular risk more in women, relative to men,” she said. And the triglyceride-to-HDL ratio seems “particularly robust” as a measure of cardiovascular health and risk. 

The interpretation of associations with triglycerides can be “tricky” and “confusing” because results differ so much between studies, she said. “There are differences between middle age and older age, which have to do with age-related changes in metabolism and lipid metabolism and not necessarily that the markers are indicating something different,” she said.

Some research has suggested that triglycerides may have a protective effect against dementia, noted Uma Naidoo, MD, director of nutritional and lifestyle psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, and director of nutritional psychiatry at MGH Academy.

This may be because the brain “runs mostly on energy from burning triglycerides,” suggested Dr. Naidoo, author of the books Calm Your Mind With Food and This Is Your Brain on Food.

In addition, having higher levels of triglycerides may be linked with having overall healthier behaviors, Dr. Naidoo told this news organization.

Dr. Mills said that in middle-aged individuals, high levels of LDL-C and triglycerides are “often indicative of more atherogenic particles and risk to cardiovascular health, which is a generally negative trajectory. But in older individuals, things become more complicated because there are differences in terms of clearance of some of these particles, tissue clearance and distribution, and nutrient status. So for older individuals, it seems that fluctuations in either direction—either too high or too low—tend to be more informative that some overall dysregulation is going on the system.” 

She emphasized that, in this “emerging area, looking at only one or two studies is confusing. But if you look at the spectrum of studies, you can see a pattern, which is that the regulation gets ‘off,’ as people age.”

 

The Potential Role of Statins

Dr. Mills speculated that there may be “neuroprotective benefits for some of the statins which appear to be related to cardiovascular benefits. But at this point, we don’t have any clear data whether statins actually directly impact brain cholesterol, since it’s a separate pool.”

They could help “by increasing blood flow and reducing narrowing of the arteries, but any direct impact on the brain is still under investigation.”

Dr. Hansen pointed to research suggesting statins taken at midlife appear to be cardioprotective and may be protective of brain health as well, whereas statins initiated in older age do not appear to have these benefits.

He speculated that one reason statins seem less helpful when initiated later in life is that the BBB has already been damaged by systemic inflammation in the periphery, and the neuroinflammatory process resulting in neuronal destruction is already underway. “I think statins aren’t going to fix that problem, so although lowering cholesterol can be helpful in some respects, it might be too late to affect cognition because the nerves have already died and won’t grow back.”
 

Can Dietary Approaches Help?

Dr. Naidoo said that when looking at neurologic and psychiatric disease, “it’s important to think about the ‘long game’ — how can we improve our blood and cardiovascular health earlier in life to help potentiate healthy aging?”

From a nutritional psychiatry standpoint, Dr. Naidoo focuses on nourishing the gut microbiome and decreasing inflammation. “A healthy and balanced microbiome supports cognition, while the composition of gut bacteria is actually drastically different in patients with neurological diseases, such as AD.” 

She recommends a nutrient-dense, anti-inflammatory diet including probiotic-rich foods (such as kimchi, sauerkraut, plain yogurt, and miso). Moreover, “the quality and structure of our fatty acids may be relevant as well: Increasing our intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids and avoiding processed fats like trans fats and hydrogenated oils may benefit our overall brain health.”

Dr. Naidoo recommends extra-virgin olive oil as a source of healthy fat. Its consumption is linked to lower incidence of AD by way of encouraging autophagy, which she calls “our own process of “cellular cleanup.’”

Dr. Naidoo believes that clinicians’ guidance to patients should “focus on healthy nutrition and other lifestyle practices, such as exercise, outdoor time, good sleep, and stress reduction.” 

Dr. Mills notes the importance of omega-3 fatty acids, such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) , for brain health. “DHA is a major lipid component of neuronal membranes,” she said. “Because of inefficiencies in metabolism with APOE4, people tend to metabolize more of the lipids on the membranes themselves, so they have higher lipid membrane turnover and a greater need to supplement. Supplementing particularly through diet, with foods such as fatty fish rich in omega-3, can help boost the levels to help keep neuronal membranes intact.”
 

What This Means for the Clinician

“At this point, we see all of these associations between lipids and dementia, but we haven’t worked out exactly what it means on the individual level for an individual patient,” said Dr. Mills. Certainly, the picture is complex, and the understanding is growing and shifting. “The clinical applications remain unclear.”

One potential clinical take-home is that clinicians might consider tracking lipid levels over time. “If you follow a patient and see an increase or decrease [in lipid levels], that can be informative.” Looking at ratios of lipids might be more useful than looking only at a change in a single measure. “If you see trends in a variety of measures that track with one another, it might be more of a sign that something is potentially wrong.” 

Whether the patient should first try a lifestyle intervention or might need medication is a “personalized clinical decision, depending on the individual, their risk factors, and how their levels are going,” said Dr. Mills. 

Dr. Mills, Dr. Hansen, and Dr. Naidoo declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), a noninvasive technique that uses low-intensity electrical currents to modulate brain activity, is an effective intervention for treating chronic insomnia, especially in older people, results of a relatively large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The double-blind study included 124 adults with chronic insomnia (difficulty falling asleep or maintaining sleep and early morning awakening occurring at least three times a week over 3 or more months), mean age about 51 years, from two centers in China who were randomized to receive either tACS (active group) or sham tACS (control group).
• Patients underwent 20 40-minute sessions over 4 weeks; the tACS intervention involved positioning three electrodes on the scalp and applying a current of 15 mA at a frequency of 77.5 Hz, whereas the control group received no stimulation.
• Primary outcome measures included total score on the Chinese version of the self-report Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), sleep onset latency, total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency, sleep quality, and daily disturbances (such as fatigue and attention deficits).
• Secondary outcomes included Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and Clinical Global Impression scale (including Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness [CGI-SI], Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement [CGI-GI], and Clinical Global Impression Efficacy Index [CGI-EI]).
• As rates of chronic insomnia increase with age, researchers explored the influence of age on treatment benefits by dividing participants into two age groups (< 50 years and ≥ 50 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 120 participants who completed the trial, tACS resulted in a statistically significant decrease in insomnia severity compared with the control group (estimated advantage [number of points on PSQI scale], 2.61; 95% CI, 1.47-3.75; P < .001).
• There were also statistically significant estimated advantages of tACS for TST (−0.65; 95% CI, −1.06 to −0.24; P = .002), sleep efficiency (1.05; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P < .001), sleep quality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.29-1.34; P = .003), and daily disturbances (0.91; 95% CI, 0.58-1.25; P < .001).
• tACS exhibited significant effects on CGI-SI (0.84; 95% CI, 0.38-1.30; P < .001), CGI-GI (0.74; 95% CI, 0.42-1.06; P < .001), and CGI-EI (−0.71; 95% CI, −1.02 to −0.39; P < .001) but not on total scores of HAMD and HAMA, possibly because of the relatively low baseline levels of depression and anxiety among study subjects, said the authors.
• In the older, but not younger, group, tACS treatment had a significant benefit in sleep quality, sleep efficiency, PSQI total score, CGI-SI, CGI-GI, and CGI-EI.

IN PRACTICE:

“These significant findings contribute substantially to promoting evidence-based practices and facilitating the development of innovative treatment strategies for chronic insomnia,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Xiaolin Zhu, Beijing Huilongguan Hospital, Peking University Huilongguan Clinical Medical School, Beijing, China, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up period was limited to 8 weeks, so longer follow-up studies are needed to explore the sustained effects of tACS on chronic insomnia. Severity of chronic insomnia was limited by using the self-report PSQI, and not objective measures of insomnia such as polysomnography and wrist actigraphy. The age of study subjects ranged from 22 to only 65 years.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), a noninvasive technique that uses low-intensity electrical currents to modulate brain activity, is an effective intervention for treating chronic insomnia, especially in older people, results of a relatively large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The double-blind study included 124 adults with chronic insomnia (difficulty falling asleep or maintaining sleep and early morning awakening occurring at least three times a week over 3 or more months), mean age about 51 years, from two centers in China who were randomized to receive either tACS (active group) or sham tACS (control group).
• Patients underwent 20 40-minute sessions over 4 weeks; the tACS intervention involved positioning three electrodes on the scalp and applying a current of 15 mA at a frequency of 77.5 Hz, whereas the control group received no stimulation.
• Primary outcome measures included total score on the Chinese version of the self-report Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), sleep onset latency, total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency, sleep quality, and daily disturbances (such as fatigue and attention deficits).
• Secondary outcomes included Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and Clinical Global Impression scale (including Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness [CGI-SI], Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement [CGI-GI], and Clinical Global Impression Efficacy Index [CGI-EI]).
• As rates of chronic insomnia increase with age, researchers explored the influence of age on treatment benefits by dividing participants into two age groups (< 50 years and ≥ 50 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 120 participants who completed the trial, tACS resulted in a statistically significant decrease in insomnia severity compared with the control group (estimated advantage [number of points on PSQI scale], 2.61; 95% CI, 1.47-3.75; P < .001).
• There were also statistically significant estimated advantages of tACS for TST (−0.65; 95% CI, −1.06 to −0.24; P = .002), sleep efficiency (1.05; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P < .001), sleep quality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.29-1.34; P = .003), and daily disturbances (0.91; 95% CI, 0.58-1.25; P < .001).
• tACS exhibited significant effects on CGI-SI (0.84; 95% CI, 0.38-1.30; P < .001), CGI-GI (0.74; 95% CI, 0.42-1.06; P < .001), and CGI-EI (−0.71; 95% CI, −1.02 to −0.39; P < .001) but not on total scores of HAMD and HAMA, possibly because of the relatively low baseline levels of depression and anxiety among study subjects, said the authors.
• In the older, but not younger, group, tACS treatment had a significant benefit in sleep quality, sleep efficiency, PSQI total score, CGI-SI, CGI-GI, and CGI-EI.

IN PRACTICE:

“These significant findings contribute substantially to promoting evidence-based practices and facilitating the development of innovative treatment strategies for chronic insomnia,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Xiaolin Zhu, Beijing Huilongguan Hospital, Peking University Huilongguan Clinical Medical School, Beijing, China, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up period was limited to 8 weeks, so longer follow-up studies are needed to explore the sustained effects of tACS on chronic insomnia. Severity of chronic insomnia was limited by using the self-report PSQI, and not objective measures of insomnia such as polysomnography and wrist actigraphy. The age of study subjects ranged from 22 to only 65 years.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), a noninvasive technique that uses low-intensity electrical currents to modulate brain activity, is an effective intervention for treating chronic insomnia, especially in older people, results of a relatively large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The double-blind study included 124 adults with chronic insomnia (difficulty falling asleep or maintaining sleep and early morning awakening occurring at least three times a week over 3 or more months), mean age about 51 years, from two centers in China who were randomized to receive either tACS (active group) or sham tACS (control group).
• Patients underwent 20 40-minute sessions over 4 weeks; the tACS intervention involved positioning three electrodes on the scalp and applying a current of 15 mA at a frequency of 77.5 Hz, whereas the control group received no stimulation.
• Primary outcome measures included total score on the Chinese version of the self-report Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), sleep onset latency, total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency, sleep quality, and daily disturbances (such as fatigue and attention deficits).
• Secondary outcomes included Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and Clinical Global Impression scale (including Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness [CGI-SI], Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement [CGI-GI], and Clinical Global Impression Efficacy Index [CGI-EI]).
• As rates of chronic insomnia increase with age, researchers explored the influence of age on treatment benefits by dividing participants into two age groups (< 50 years and ≥ 50 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 120 participants who completed the trial, tACS resulted in a statistically significant decrease in insomnia severity compared with the control group (estimated advantage [number of points on PSQI scale], 2.61; 95% CI, 1.47-3.75; P < .001).
• There were also statistically significant estimated advantages of tACS for TST (−0.65; 95% CI, −1.06 to −0.24; P = .002), sleep efficiency (1.05; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P < .001), sleep quality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.29-1.34; P = .003), and daily disturbances (0.91; 95% CI, 0.58-1.25; P < .001).
• tACS exhibited significant effects on CGI-SI (0.84; 95% CI, 0.38-1.30; P < .001), CGI-GI (0.74; 95% CI, 0.42-1.06; P < .001), and CGI-EI (−0.71; 95% CI, −1.02 to −0.39; P < .001) but not on total scores of HAMD and HAMA, possibly because of the relatively low baseline levels of depression and anxiety among study subjects, said the authors.
• In the older, but not younger, group, tACS treatment had a significant benefit in sleep quality, sleep efficiency, PSQI total score, CGI-SI, CGI-GI, and CGI-EI.

IN PRACTICE:

“These significant findings contribute substantially to promoting evidence-based practices and facilitating the development of innovative treatment strategies for chronic insomnia,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Xiaolin Zhu, Beijing Huilongguan Hospital, Peking University Huilongguan Clinical Medical School, Beijing, China, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up period was limited to 8 weeks, so longer follow-up studies are needed to explore the sustained effects of tACS on chronic insomnia. Severity of chronic insomnia was limited by using the self-report PSQI, and not objective measures of insomnia such as polysomnography and wrist actigraphy. The age of study subjects ranged from 22 to only 65 years.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Making eye contact is important in human interactions. It shows attention and comprehension. It also helps us read the nuances of another’s facial expressions when interacting.

Although the idea of video phone calls isn’t new — I remember it from my childhood in “house of the future” TV shows — it certainly didn’t take off until the advent of high-speed Internet, computers, and phones with cameras. Then Facetime, Skype, Zoom, Teams, and others.

Of course, it all still took a back seat to actually seeing people and having meetings in person. Until the pandemic made that the least attractive option. Then the adoption of such things went into hyperdrive and has stayed there ever since.

And ya know, I don’t have too many complaints. Between clinical trials and legal cases, both of which involve A LOT of meetings, it’s made my life easier. I no longer have to leave the office, allow time to drive somewhere and back, fight traffic, burn gas, and find parking. I move from a patient to the meeting and back to a patient from the cozy confines of my office, all without my tea getting cold.

But you can’t really make eye contact on Zoom. Instinctively, we generally look directly at the eyes of the person we’re speaking to, but in the virtual world we really don’t do that. On their end you’re on a screen, your gaze fixed somewhere below the level of your camera.

Try talking directly to the camera on Zoom — or any video platform. It doesn’t work. You feel like Dave addressing HAL’s red light in 2001. Inevitably your eyes are drawn back to the other person’s face, which is what you’re programmed to do. If they’re speaking you look at them, even though the sound is really coming from your speakers.

Interestingly, though, it seems something is lost in there. A recent perspective noted that Zoom meetings seemed to stifle creativity and produced fewer ideas than in person.

An interesting study compared neural response signals of people seeing a presentation on Zoom versus the same talk in person. When looking at a “real” speaker, there was synchronized neural activity, a higher level of engagement, and increased activation of the dorsal-parietal cortex.

Without actual eye contact it’s harder to read subtle facial expressions. Hand gestures and other body language may be out of the camera frame, or absent altogether. The nuances of voice pitch, timbre, and tone may not be the same over the speaker.

Our brains have spent several million of years developing facial recognition and reading, knowing friend from foe, and understanding what’s meant not just in what sounds are used but how they’re conveyed.

I’m not saying we should stop using Zoom altogether — it makes meetings more convenient for most people, including myself. But we also need to keep in mind that what it doesn’t convey is as important as what it does, and that virtual is never a perfect substitute for reality.
 

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

Making eye contact is important in human interactions. It shows attention and comprehension. It also helps us read the nuances of another’s facial expressions when interacting.

Although the idea of video phone calls isn’t new — I remember it from my childhood in “house of the future” TV shows — it certainly didn’t take off until the advent of high-speed Internet, computers, and phones with cameras. Then Facetime, Skype, Zoom, Teams, and others.

Of course, it all still took a back seat to actually seeing people and having meetings in person. Until the pandemic made that the least attractive option. Then the adoption of such things went into hyperdrive and has stayed there ever since.

And ya know, I don’t have too many complaints. Between clinical trials and legal cases, both of which involve A LOT of meetings, it’s made my life easier. I no longer have to leave the office, allow time to drive somewhere and back, fight traffic, burn gas, and find parking. I move from a patient to the meeting and back to a patient from the cozy confines of my office, all without my tea getting cold.

But you can’t really make eye contact on Zoom. Instinctively, we generally look directly at the eyes of the person we’re speaking to, but in the virtual world we really don’t do that. On their end you’re on a screen, your gaze fixed somewhere below the level of your camera.

Try talking directly to the camera on Zoom — or any video platform. It doesn’t work. You feel like Dave addressing HAL’s red light in 2001. Inevitably your eyes are drawn back to the other person’s face, which is what you’re programmed to do. If they’re speaking you look at them, even though the sound is really coming from your speakers.

Interestingly, though, it seems something is lost in there. A recent perspective noted that Zoom meetings seemed to stifle creativity and produced fewer ideas than in person.

An interesting study compared neural response signals of people seeing a presentation on Zoom versus the same talk in person. When looking at a “real” speaker, there was synchronized neural activity, a higher level of engagement, and increased activation of the dorsal-parietal cortex.

Without actual eye contact it’s harder to read subtle facial expressions. Hand gestures and other body language may be out of the camera frame, or absent altogether. The nuances of voice pitch, timbre, and tone may not be the same over the speaker.

Our brains have spent several million of years developing facial recognition and reading, knowing friend from foe, and understanding what’s meant not just in what sounds are used but how they’re conveyed.

I’m not saying we should stop using Zoom altogether — it makes meetings more convenient for most people, including myself. But we also need to keep in mind that what it doesn’t convey is as important as what it does, and that virtual is never a perfect substitute for reality.
 

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

Making eye contact is important in human interactions. It shows attention and comprehension. It also helps us read the nuances of another’s facial expressions when interacting.

Although the idea of video phone calls isn’t new — I remember it from my childhood in “house of the future” TV shows — it certainly didn’t take off until the advent of high-speed Internet, computers, and phones with cameras. Then Facetime, Skype, Zoom, Teams, and others.

Of course, it all still took a back seat to actually seeing people and having meetings in person. Until the pandemic made that the least attractive option. Then the adoption of such things went into hyperdrive and has stayed there ever since.

And ya know, I don’t have too many complaints. Between clinical trials and legal cases, both of which involve A LOT of meetings, it’s made my life easier. I no longer have to leave the office, allow time to drive somewhere and back, fight traffic, burn gas, and find parking. I move from a patient to the meeting and back to a patient from the cozy confines of my office, all without my tea getting cold.

But you can’t really make eye contact on Zoom. Instinctively, we generally look directly at the eyes of the person we’re speaking to, but in the virtual world we really don’t do that. On their end you’re on a screen, your gaze fixed somewhere below the level of your camera.

Try talking directly to the camera on Zoom — or any video platform. It doesn’t work. You feel like Dave addressing HAL’s red light in 2001. Inevitably your eyes are drawn back to the other person’s face, which is what you’re programmed to do. If they’re speaking you look at them, even though the sound is really coming from your speakers.

Interestingly, though, it seems something is lost in there. A recent perspective noted that Zoom meetings seemed to stifle creativity and produced fewer ideas than in person.

An interesting study compared neural response signals of people seeing a presentation on Zoom versus the same talk in person. When looking at a “real” speaker, there was synchronized neural activity, a higher level of engagement, and increased activation of the dorsal-parietal cortex.

Without actual eye contact it’s harder to read subtle facial expressions. Hand gestures and other body language may be out of the camera frame, or absent altogether. The nuances of voice pitch, timbre, and tone may not be the same over the speaker.

Our brains have spent several million of years developing facial recognition and reading, knowing friend from foe, and understanding what’s meant not just in what sounds are used but how they’re conveyed.

I’m not saying we should stop using Zoom altogether — it makes meetings more convenient for most people, including myself. But we also need to keep in mind that what it doesn’t convey is as important as what it does, and that virtual is never a perfect substitute for reality.
 

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

TOPLINE:

In addition to better known risk factors such as diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and depression, findings of a large study suggested vitamin D deficiency, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and social isolation increase the risk for young-onset dementia (YOD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 356,052 participants younger than 65 years (mean baseline age, 54.6 years) without dementia from the UK Biobank, an ongoing prospective cohort study.
• Participants underwent a comprehensive baseline assessment, provided biological samples, completed touch screen questionnaires, and underwent a physical examination.
• Researchers identified incident all-cause YOD cases from hospital inpatient registers or death register linkage.
• The researchers detected 39 potential risk factors and grouped them into domains of sociodemographic, genetic, lifestyle, environmental, vitamin D and CRP levels, cardiometabolic, psychiatric, and other factors.
• Researchers analyzed incidence rates of YOD for 5-year age bands starting at age 40 years and separately for men and women.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up of 8.12 years, there were 485 incident YOD cases (incidence rate of 16.8 per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI 15.4-18.3).
• The final analysis identified 15 risk factors associated with significantly higher incidence of YOD, including traditional factors like stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.07), heart disease (HR, 1.61), diabetes (HR, 1.65), and depression (HR, 3.25) but also less-recognized risk factors like vitamin D deficiency (< 10 ng/mL; HR, 1.59), high CRP levels (> 1 mg/dL; HR, 1.54), and social isolation (infrequent visits to friends or family; HR, 1.53), with lower socioeconomic status (HR, 1.82), having two apolipoprotein E epsilon-4 alleles (HR, 1.87), orthostatic hypotension, which the authors said may be an early sign of Parkinson dementia or Lewy body dementia (HR, 4.20), and hearing impairment (HR, 1.56) also increasing risk.
• Interestingly, some alcohol use seemed to be protective (moderate or heavy alcohol use had a lower association with YOD than alcohol abstinence, possibly due to the “healthy drinker effect” where people who drink are healthier than abstainers who may have illnesses preventing them from drinking, said the authors), as was higher education level and higher than normative handgrip strength (less strength is a proxy for physical frailty).
• Men with diabetes had higher YOD risk than those without diabetes, while there was no association with diabetes in women; on the other hand, women with high CRP levels had greater YOD risk than those with low levels, while there was no association with CRP in men.

IN PRACTICE:

“While further exploration of these risk factors is necessary to identify potential underlying mechanisms, addressing these modifiable factors may prove effective in mitigating the risk of developing YOD and can be readily integrated in current dementia prevention initiatives,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Stevie Hendriks, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational and so can’t infer causality. Several factors were based on self-reported data, which might be a source of response bias. Factors not considered in the study, for example, family history of dementia and drug (other than alcohol) use disorder, may have confounded associations. Some factors including orthostatic hypotension had few exposed cases, leading to decreased power to detect associations. Hospital and death records may not have captured all YOD cases. The UK Biobank is overrepresented by healthy and White participants, so results may not be generalizable to other racial and ethnic groups. The analyses only focused on all-cause dementia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Alzheimer Netherlands. Hendriks has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In addition to better known risk factors such as diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and depression, findings of a large study suggested vitamin D deficiency, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and social isolation increase the risk for young-onset dementia (YOD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 356,052 participants younger than 65 years (mean baseline age, 54.6 years) without dementia from the UK Biobank, an ongoing prospective cohort study.
• Participants underwent a comprehensive baseline assessment, provided biological samples, completed touch screen questionnaires, and underwent a physical examination.
• Researchers identified incident all-cause YOD cases from hospital inpatient registers or death register linkage.
• The researchers detected 39 potential risk factors and grouped them into domains of sociodemographic, genetic, lifestyle, environmental, vitamin D and CRP levels, cardiometabolic, psychiatric, and other factors.
• Researchers analyzed incidence rates of YOD for 5-year age bands starting at age 40 years and separately for men and women.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up of 8.12 years, there were 485 incident YOD cases (incidence rate of 16.8 per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI 15.4-18.3).
• The final analysis identified 15 risk factors associated with significantly higher incidence of YOD, including traditional factors like stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.07), heart disease (HR, 1.61), diabetes (HR, 1.65), and depression (HR, 3.25) but also less-recognized risk factors like vitamin D deficiency (< 10 ng/mL; HR, 1.59), high CRP levels (> 1 mg/dL; HR, 1.54), and social isolation (infrequent visits to friends or family; HR, 1.53), with lower socioeconomic status (HR, 1.82), having two apolipoprotein E epsilon-4 alleles (HR, 1.87), orthostatic hypotension, which the authors said may be an early sign of Parkinson dementia or Lewy body dementia (HR, 4.20), and hearing impairment (HR, 1.56) also increasing risk.
• Interestingly, some alcohol use seemed to be protective (moderate or heavy alcohol use had a lower association with YOD than alcohol abstinence, possibly due to the “healthy drinker effect” where people who drink are healthier than abstainers who may have illnesses preventing them from drinking, said the authors), as was higher education level and higher than normative handgrip strength (less strength is a proxy for physical frailty).
• Men with diabetes had higher YOD risk than those without diabetes, while there was no association with diabetes in women; on the other hand, women with high CRP levels had greater YOD risk than those with low levels, while there was no association with CRP in men.

IN PRACTICE:

“While further exploration of these risk factors is necessary to identify potential underlying mechanisms, addressing these modifiable factors may prove effective in mitigating the risk of developing YOD and can be readily integrated in current dementia prevention initiatives,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Stevie Hendriks, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational and so can’t infer causality. Several factors were based on self-reported data, which might be a source of response bias. Factors not considered in the study, for example, family history of dementia and drug (other than alcohol) use disorder, may have confounded associations. Some factors including orthostatic hypotension had few exposed cases, leading to decreased power to detect associations. Hospital and death records may not have captured all YOD cases. The UK Biobank is overrepresented by healthy and White participants, so results may not be generalizable to other racial and ethnic groups. The analyses only focused on all-cause dementia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Alzheimer Netherlands. Hendriks has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In addition to better known risk factors such as diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and depression, findings of a large study suggested vitamin D deficiency, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and social isolation increase the risk for young-onset dementia (YOD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 356,052 participants younger than 65 years (mean baseline age, 54.6 years) without dementia from the UK Biobank, an ongoing prospective cohort study.
• Participants underwent a comprehensive baseline assessment, provided biological samples, completed touch screen questionnaires, and underwent a physical examination.
• Researchers identified incident all-cause YOD cases from hospital inpatient registers or death register linkage.
• The researchers detected 39 potential risk factors and grouped them into domains of sociodemographic, genetic, lifestyle, environmental, vitamin D and CRP levels, cardiometabolic, psychiatric, and other factors.
• Researchers analyzed incidence rates of YOD for 5-year age bands starting at age 40 years and separately for men and women.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up of 8.12 years, there were 485 incident YOD cases (incidence rate of 16.8 per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI 15.4-18.3).
• The final analysis identified 15 risk factors associated with significantly higher incidence of YOD, including traditional factors like stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.07), heart disease (HR, 1.61), diabetes (HR, 1.65), and depression (HR, 3.25) but also less-recognized risk factors like vitamin D deficiency (< 10 ng/mL; HR, 1.59), high CRP levels (> 1 mg/dL; HR, 1.54), and social isolation (infrequent visits to friends or family; HR, 1.53), with lower socioeconomic status (HR, 1.82), having two apolipoprotein E epsilon-4 alleles (HR, 1.87), orthostatic hypotension, which the authors said may be an early sign of Parkinson dementia or Lewy body dementia (HR, 4.20), and hearing impairment (HR, 1.56) also increasing risk.
• Interestingly, some alcohol use seemed to be protective (moderate or heavy alcohol use had a lower association with YOD than alcohol abstinence, possibly due to the “healthy drinker effect” where people who drink are healthier than abstainers who may have illnesses preventing them from drinking, said the authors), as was higher education level and higher than normative handgrip strength (less strength is a proxy for physical frailty).
• Men with diabetes had higher YOD risk than those without diabetes, while there was no association with diabetes in women; on the other hand, women with high CRP levels had greater YOD risk than those with low levels, while there was no association with CRP in men.

IN PRACTICE:

“While further exploration of these risk factors is necessary to identify potential underlying mechanisms, addressing these modifiable factors may prove effective in mitigating the risk of developing YOD and can be readily integrated in current dementia prevention initiatives,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Stevie Hendriks, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational and so can’t infer causality. Several factors were based on self-reported data, which might be a source of response bias. Factors not considered in the study, for example, family history of dementia and drug (other than alcohol) use disorder, may have confounded associations. Some factors including orthostatic hypotension had few exposed cases, leading to decreased power to detect associations. Hospital and death records may not have captured all YOD cases. The UK Biobank is overrepresented by healthy and White participants, so results may not be generalizable to other racial and ethnic groups. The analyses only focused on all-cause dementia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Alzheimer Netherlands. Hendriks has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.