MDedge Neurology

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

BOSTON – An investigational natural killer cell (NK) therapy has shown promise in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, in a small phase 1 proof-of-concept clinical trial.

SNK01, being developed by NKGen Biotech, is an autologous, nongenetically modified NK cell product that has enhanced cytotoxicity and activating receptor expression.

“When we give these enhanced natural killer cells intravenously, not only do they get into the brain, but we’ve shown, through CSF biomarker data, that they reduce both amyloid and tau proteins, dramatically reducing the neuroinflammation,” said Paul Song, MD, chief executive officer of NKGen Biotech.

“Remarkably,” in the first 6 months, 90% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease demonstrated improvement or maintained stable cognitive function, based on the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS), suggesting that SNK01 may do more than simply slow disease progression, Dr. Song said.

The findings were presented at the 16th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
 

Sound rationale

NK cells are an essential part of the innate immune system that can shape the adaptive response by eliminating activated (not resting) autologous CD4+ T cells. Weak or deficient NK cells have been found to correlate with various diseases, including autoimmune diseases, and emerging data suggest an autoimmune component to Alzheimer’s disease.

The phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of SNK01 given intravenously in escalating doses every 3 weeks (four treatments in total).

Participants included 10 patients with Alzheimer’s disease confirmed by imaging. Five had mild Alzheimer’s disease, three had moderate Alzheimer’s disease, and two had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, based on baseline Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. Median baseline CDR-SB score was 9 (range, 4-18).

Cognitive assessments included CDR-SB, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Alzheimer’s disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and ADCOMS. CSF biomarker analyses were performed at baseline and at 1 and 12 weeks after the final dose (weeks 11 and 22, respectively).

NK cells were successfully activated and expanded in all 10 patients and no treatment-related adverse events were observed.

Based on the CSF biomarker data, SNK01 crossed the blood–brain barrier and reduced CSF amyloid-beta 42/40 and pTau181 levels and neuroinflammation, as measured by glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), and the effects appeared to persist 12 weeks after the final dose.

The exploratory efficacy data show that, 1 week after final dose (week 11), compared with baseline, 30% of patients showed clinical improvement on the composite ADCOMS and 60% had a stable ADCOMS score; 50%-70% of patients were stable or improved on the CDR-SB, ADAS-Cog and/or MMSE.

“One patient went from a MMSE score of 14, which is moderate dementia, to 22, which is mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Song.

At 12 weeks after the final dose (week 22), 44%-89% of patients remained stable or improved in all cognitive scores compared with week 11; and 50% of the patients with stable ADCOMS scores at week 11 remained stable.

Based on the positive phase 1 data, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a phase 1/2a study in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease. “The trial will use a much higher dose and a prolonged dosing regimen and we think we’ll see even more dramatic results with more sustained higher dosing,” Dr. Song said.

Down the road, it will be interesting to see how NK cell therapy could “complement” anti-amyloid and anti-tau therapies, he added.
 

Ideal treatment approach

Commenting on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said NK cells have “natural abilities that could make them an ideal treatment approach for Alzheimer’s and similar neurodegenerative diseases.

“NK cells have properties that allow them to recognize and destroy diseased brain cells while leaving healthy cells intact, without causing excessive inflammation or autoimmune issues. It has historically been difficult to get immune cells to access the privileged immunological environment of the brain,” Dr. Lakhan explained.

“However, this line of early research shows that NK cells safely crosses the blood–brain barrier, infiltrates brain tissue, and may stave off Alzheimer’s disease as measured by biomarkers and clinical symptoms,” he noted.

“This emerging cell-based immunotherapy is highly-specific to the cells responsible for Alzheimer’s, avoids drug resistance, has long-lasting results, and has fewer side effects than drug counterparts,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The trial was sponsored by NKGen Biotech. Dr. Song and six coauthors are employees and shareholders in the company. Dr. Lakhan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – An investigational natural killer cell (NK) therapy has shown promise in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, in a small phase 1 proof-of-concept clinical trial.

SNK01, being developed by NKGen Biotech, is an autologous, nongenetically modified NK cell product that has enhanced cytotoxicity and activating receptor expression.

“When we give these enhanced natural killer cells intravenously, not only do they get into the brain, but we’ve shown, through CSF biomarker data, that they reduce both amyloid and tau proteins, dramatically reducing the neuroinflammation,” said Paul Song, MD, chief executive officer of NKGen Biotech.

“Remarkably,” in the first 6 months, 90% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease demonstrated improvement or maintained stable cognitive function, based on the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS), suggesting that SNK01 may do more than simply slow disease progression, Dr. Song said.

The findings were presented at the 16th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
 

Sound rationale

NK cells are an essential part of the innate immune system that can shape the adaptive response by eliminating activated (not resting) autologous CD4+ T cells. Weak or deficient NK cells have been found to correlate with various diseases, including autoimmune diseases, and emerging data suggest an autoimmune component to Alzheimer’s disease.

The phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of SNK01 given intravenously in escalating doses every 3 weeks (four treatments in total).

Participants included 10 patients with Alzheimer’s disease confirmed by imaging. Five had mild Alzheimer’s disease, three had moderate Alzheimer’s disease, and two had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, based on baseline Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. Median baseline CDR-SB score was 9 (range, 4-18).

Cognitive assessments included CDR-SB, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Alzheimer’s disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and ADCOMS. CSF biomarker analyses were performed at baseline and at 1 and 12 weeks after the final dose (weeks 11 and 22, respectively).

NK cells were successfully activated and expanded in all 10 patients and no treatment-related adverse events were observed.

Based on the CSF biomarker data, SNK01 crossed the blood–brain barrier and reduced CSF amyloid-beta 42/40 and pTau181 levels and neuroinflammation, as measured by glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), and the effects appeared to persist 12 weeks after the final dose.

The exploratory efficacy data show that, 1 week after final dose (week 11), compared with baseline, 30% of patients showed clinical improvement on the composite ADCOMS and 60% had a stable ADCOMS score; 50%-70% of patients were stable or improved on the CDR-SB, ADAS-Cog and/or MMSE.

“One patient went from a MMSE score of 14, which is moderate dementia, to 22, which is mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Song.

At 12 weeks after the final dose (week 22), 44%-89% of patients remained stable or improved in all cognitive scores compared with week 11; and 50% of the patients with stable ADCOMS scores at week 11 remained stable.

Based on the positive phase 1 data, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a phase 1/2a study in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease. “The trial will use a much higher dose and a prolonged dosing regimen and we think we’ll see even more dramatic results with more sustained higher dosing,” Dr. Song said.

Down the road, it will be interesting to see how NK cell therapy could “complement” anti-amyloid and anti-tau therapies, he added.
 

Ideal treatment approach

Commenting on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said NK cells have “natural abilities that could make them an ideal treatment approach for Alzheimer’s and similar neurodegenerative diseases.

“NK cells have properties that allow them to recognize and destroy diseased brain cells while leaving healthy cells intact, without causing excessive inflammation or autoimmune issues. It has historically been difficult to get immune cells to access the privileged immunological environment of the brain,” Dr. Lakhan explained.

“However, this line of early research shows that NK cells safely crosses the blood–brain barrier, infiltrates brain tissue, and may stave off Alzheimer’s disease as measured by biomarkers and clinical symptoms,” he noted.

“This emerging cell-based immunotherapy is highly-specific to the cells responsible for Alzheimer’s, avoids drug resistance, has long-lasting results, and has fewer side effects than drug counterparts,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The trial was sponsored by NKGen Biotech. Dr. Song and six coauthors are employees and shareholders in the company. Dr. Lakhan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – An investigational natural killer cell (NK) therapy has shown promise in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, in a small phase 1 proof-of-concept clinical trial.

SNK01, being developed by NKGen Biotech, is an autologous, nongenetically modified NK cell product that has enhanced cytotoxicity and activating receptor expression.

“When we give these enhanced natural killer cells intravenously, not only do they get into the brain, but we’ve shown, through CSF biomarker data, that they reduce both amyloid and tau proteins, dramatically reducing the neuroinflammation,” said Paul Song, MD, chief executive officer of NKGen Biotech.

“Remarkably,” in the first 6 months, 90% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease demonstrated improvement or maintained stable cognitive function, based on the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS), suggesting that SNK01 may do more than simply slow disease progression, Dr. Song said.

The findings were presented at the 16th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
 

Sound rationale

NK cells are an essential part of the innate immune system that can shape the adaptive response by eliminating activated (not resting) autologous CD4+ T cells. Weak or deficient NK cells have been found to correlate with various diseases, including autoimmune diseases, and emerging data suggest an autoimmune component to Alzheimer’s disease.

The phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of SNK01 given intravenously in escalating doses every 3 weeks (four treatments in total).

Participants included 10 patients with Alzheimer’s disease confirmed by imaging. Five had mild Alzheimer’s disease, three had moderate Alzheimer’s disease, and two had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, based on baseline Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. Median baseline CDR-SB score was 9 (range, 4-18).

Cognitive assessments included CDR-SB, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Alzheimer’s disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and ADCOMS. CSF biomarker analyses were performed at baseline and at 1 and 12 weeks after the final dose (weeks 11 and 22, respectively).

NK cells were successfully activated and expanded in all 10 patients and no treatment-related adverse events were observed.

Based on the CSF biomarker data, SNK01 crossed the blood–brain barrier and reduced CSF amyloid-beta 42/40 and pTau181 levels and neuroinflammation, as measured by glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), and the effects appeared to persist 12 weeks after the final dose.

The exploratory efficacy data show that, 1 week after final dose (week 11), compared with baseline, 30% of patients showed clinical improvement on the composite ADCOMS and 60% had a stable ADCOMS score; 50%-70% of patients were stable or improved on the CDR-SB, ADAS-Cog and/or MMSE.

“One patient went from a MMSE score of 14, which is moderate dementia, to 22, which is mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Song.

At 12 weeks after the final dose (week 22), 44%-89% of patients remained stable or improved in all cognitive scores compared with week 11; and 50% of the patients with stable ADCOMS scores at week 11 remained stable.

Based on the positive phase 1 data, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a phase 1/2a study in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease. “The trial will use a much higher dose and a prolonged dosing regimen and we think we’ll see even more dramatic results with more sustained higher dosing,” Dr. Song said.

Down the road, it will be interesting to see how NK cell therapy could “complement” anti-amyloid and anti-tau therapies, he added.
 

Ideal treatment approach

Commenting on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said NK cells have “natural abilities that could make them an ideal treatment approach for Alzheimer’s and similar neurodegenerative diseases.

“NK cells have properties that allow them to recognize and destroy diseased brain cells while leaving healthy cells intact, without causing excessive inflammation or autoimmune issues. It has historically been difficult to get immune cells to access the privileged immunological environment of the brain,” Dr. Lakhan explained.

“However, this line of early research shows that NK cells safely crosses the blood–brain barrier, infiltrates brain tissue, and may stave off Alzheimer’s disease as measured by biomarkers and clinical symptoms,” he noted.

“This emerging cell-based immunotherapy is highly-specific to the cells responsible for Alzheimer’s, avoids drug resistance, has long-lasting results, and has fewer side effects than drug counterparts,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The trial was sponsored by NKGen Biotech. Dr. Song and six coauthors are employees and shareholders in the company. Dr. Lakhan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What’s in a day’s work? For doctors, it’s typically a mix of seeing patients and completing paperwork and follow-up. Often it extends well past the standard workday.

Dennis Hursh, JD, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, describes one overwhelmed ob.gyn. who recently consulted him for this problem.

“My client had accepted a position in a group practice where his contract stated he would be working during normal office hours, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. – in other words, a 40-hour workweek,” Mr. Hursh said.

But the distressed physician discovered that actually, he was working almost twice as many hours. “He’d get to work early to do charting, then see patients during the 40 hours, perhaps grabbing a quick sandwich for a few minutes – and then stay after 5 [p.m.] for a few more hours when he’d work on charts or other administrative tasks. Then he’d get something to eat, work on more charts, then go to bed, get up in the morning, and repeat.”

Mr. Hursh summarized the client’s life: “Eating, sleeping, practicing clinical medicine, and doing nonclinical tasks.”

It turned out that the 40-hour workweek included in the contract referred to patient-facing hours, not to all of the ancillary tasks that are part of practicing medicine in this day and age. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated story,” said Mr. Hursh.
 

Be aware of what’s in the contract

“The first draft of many standard physician employment contracts often omits mention of patient contact hour requirements and rather uses vague verbiage such as ‘full-time’ employment or ‘1.0 FTE’ – or full-time equivalent – without defining that term,” said Mr. Hursh. Typically, the 40 hours exclude call coverage, but most physicians understand that and, at least at first glance, it all sounds very reasonable.

But once charting, hours on the phone, arguing with managed care companies, sending in prescriptions, administrative meetings, and other tasks are thrown in, the work hours expand dramatically. Moreover, if your employer doesn’t utilize hospitalists, you may be expected to “round” outside of the 40 hours, which can be particularly burdensome if the employer admits patients to multiple hospitals.

Amanda Hill, JD, owner of Hill Health Law based in Austin, Texas, told this news organization that this predicament isn’t unique to physicians. Exempt employees who don’t clock in and out are often expected to work overtime – that is, to “work as long as it takes to get the job done.” It can affect NPs, PAs, and many others in the health care space. But the number of tasks that fall upon a doctor’s shoulders and the fact that patients’ health and lives are at stake up the ante and make the situation far more difficult for doctors than for employees in other industries.

So it’s important to nail down precise terms in the contract and, if possible, negotiate for a more humane schedule by specifying how the working hours will be used.

“It’s true that a 1.0 FTE definition is too vague,” Ms. Hill said. “I’ve negotiated a lot of contracts where we nail down in writing that the in-office schedule equals 34 hours per week, so the physician is guaranteed an additional 6 hours for administrative time.”

Mr. Hursh usually asks for 32 hours of patient contact per week, which leaves 1 full day per week to catch up on basic administrative tasks. “It’s important for employers to recognize that seeing patients isn’t the only thing a doctor does and there’s a lot of work in addition to face-to-face time,” he said.

But he hasn’t always been successful. One physician client was seeking a workweek consisting of 36 patient contact hours, “which is 90% of the usual FTE of a 40-hour week,” said Mr. Hursh. “But the employer called it ‘part-time,’ as if the doctor were planning to be lying in the sun for the other 4 hours.”

The client decided to accept a 10% pay cut and 10% less vacation to guarantee that she had those extra hours for administrative tasks. “She’s probably working way more than 36 hours a week, but maybe closer to 50 or 60 instead of 70 or more,” he said.
 

Clarify call coverage

Call coverage is typically not included in the hours a physician is contracted to work on a weekly basis. “Most contracts have call, and it’s usually evenly distributed among parties in a practice, but call can expand if another doctor is out sick, for example,” said Ms. Hill.

Sometimes the language in the contract is vague regarding call coverage. “I ask, how many shifts per year is the doctor is expected to work? Then, I try to negotiate extra pay if more shifts arise,” she said. “The hospital or practice may not demand extra call because they don’t want to pay extra money to the physician.”

On the other hand, some physicians may be eager to take extra call if it means extra income.

Ms. Hill stated that one of her clients was being paid as a “part-time, 2-day-a-week provider” but was asked to be on call and take night and weekend work. When you added it all up, she was putting in almost 30 hours a week.

“This is abusive to a provider that works so hard for patients,” Ms. Hill said. “We have to protect them through the contract language, so they have something hard and fast to point to when their administrator pushes them too hard. Doctors should get value for their time.”

Ms. Hill and her client pushed for more money, and the employer gave in. “All we had to do was to point out how many hours she was actually working. She didn’t mind all the extra call, but she wanted to be compensated.” The doctor’s salary was hiked by $25,000.
 

Differences in specialties and settings

There are some specialties where it might be easier to have more defined hours, while other specialties are more challenging. Anu Murthy, Esq., an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics (a national firm that reviews physician contracts) told this news organization that the work of hospitalists, intensivists, and emergency department physicians, for example, is done in shifts, which tend to be fixed hours.

“They need to get their charting completed so that whoever takes over on the next shift has access to the most recent notes about the patient,” she said. By contrast, surgeons can’t always account for how long a given surgery will take. “It could be as long as 9 hours,” she said. Notes need to be written immediately for the sake of the patient’s postsurgical care.

Dermatologists tend to deal with fewer emergencies, compared with other specialists, and it’s easier for their patients to be slotted into an organized schedule. On the other hand, primary care doctors – internists, family practice physicians, and pediatricians – may be seeing 40-50 patients a day, one every 15 minutes.

Practice setting also makes a difference, said Ms. Murthy. Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals or government-run clinics tend to have more rigidly defined hours, compared with other settings, so if you’re in a VA hospital or government-run clinic, work-life balance tends to be better.

Physicians who work remotely via telehealth also tend to have a better work-life balance, compared with those who see patients in person, Ms. Murthy said. But the difference may be in not having to spend extra time commuting to work or interacting with others in the work environment, since some research has suggested that telehealth physicians may actually spend more time engaged in charting after hours, compared with their in-person counterparts.
 

Using scribes to maximize your time

Elliott Trotter, MD, is an emergency medicine physician, associate clinical professor of emergency medicine at Texas Christian University Medical Schools, and founder of the ScribeNest, a Texas-based company that trains health care scribes. He told this news organization that there are ways to maximize one’s time during shifts so that much of the charting can be accomplished during working hours.

“About 28 years ago, I realized that the documentation load for physicians was enormous and at that time I developed the Modern Scribe, using premed students for ‘elbow support’ to help with the workload by documenting the ED encounters in real time during the encounter so I wouldn’t have to do so later.”

Over the years, as EHRs have become more ubiquitous and onerous, the role of the scribe has “evolved from a luxury to a necessity,” said Dr. Trotter. The scribes can actually record the encounter directly into the EHR so that the physician doesn’t have to do so later and doesn’t have to look at a computer screen but can look at the patient during the encounter.

“This enhances communication and has been shown to improve patient care,” he said.

Dr. Trotter said he rarely, if ever, needs to do documentation after hours. “But one of my physician colleagues had over 500 charts in his in-basket on a regular basis, which was overwhelming and untenable.”

The use of AI in health care is rapidly growing. Tools to help hasten the process of taking notes through use of AI-generated summaries is something appealing to many doctors. Ms. Hill warned physicians to “be careful not to rely so heavily on AI that you trust it over your own words.” She noted that it can make mistakes, and the liability always remains with the clinician.
 

Creating time-efficient strategies

Wilfrid Noel Raby, PhD, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., was formerly a psychiatrist in the substance abuse unit at Montefiore Hospital, New York. He told this news organization that he developed a system whereby he rarely had to take work home with him. “I was working only 20 hours a week, but I was usually able to do my charting during those hours, as well as seeing patients,” he said. “I scheduled my appointments and structured a little ‘buffer time’ between them so that I had time to document the first appointment before moving on to the next one.”

There were days when this wasn’t possible because there were too many patients who needed to be seen back-to-back. “So I developed my own template where I could take rapid, very standardized notes that fit into the format of the EHR and met those expectations.” Then, when he had finished seeing patients, he could quickly enter the content of his notes into the EHR. If necessary, he completed his charting on a different day.

Viwek Bisen, DO, assistant professor of psychiatry, Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, is a psychiatrist in the emergency department. “My contract is based on a traditional 40-hour workweek, with 80% of my time allotted to seeing patients and 20% of my time allotted to administration.”

But the way his time actually plays out is that he’s seeing patients during about half of the 32 hours. “The rest of the time, I’m charting, speaking to family members of patients, writing notes, engaging in team meetings, and dealing with insurance companies.” Dr. Bisen has developed his own system of completing his notes while still in the hospital. “I’ve learned to be efficient and manage my time better, so I no longer have to take work home with me.”

“At the end of the day, doctors are people,” Ms. Hill said. “They are not machines. Maybe in residency and fellowship they may grind out impossible shifts with little sleep, but this pace isn’t tenable for an entire career.”

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

What’s in a day’s work? For doctors, it’s typically a mix of seeing patients and completing paperwork and follow-up. Often it extends well past the standard workday.

Dennis Hursh, JD, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, describes one overwhelmed ob.gyn. who recently consulted him for this problem.

“My client had accepted a position in a group practice where his contract stated he would be working during normal office hours, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. – in other words, a 40-hour workweek,” Mr. Hursh said.

But the distressed physician discovered that actually, he was working almost twice as many hours. “He’d get to work early to do charting, then see patients during the 40 hours, perhaps grabbing a quick sandwich for a few minutes – and then stay after 5 [p.m.] for a few more hours when he’d work on charts or other administrative tasks. Then he’d get something to eat, work on more charts, then go to bed, get up in the morning, and repeat.”

Mr. Hursh summarized the client’s life: “Eating, sleeping, practicing clinical medicine, and doing nonclinical tasks.”

It turned out that the 40-hour workweek included in the contract referred to patient-facing hours, not to all of the ancillary tasks that are part of practicing medicine in this day and age. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated story,” said Mr. Hursh.
 

Be aware of what’s in the contract

“The first draft of many standard physician employment contracts often omits mention of patient contact hour requirements and rather uses vague verbiage such as ‘full-time’ employment or ‘1.0 FTE’ – or full-time equivalent – without defining that term,” said Mr. Hursh. Typically, the 40 hours exclude call coverage, but most physicians understand that and, at least at first glance, it all sounds very reasonable.

But once charting, hours on the phone, arguing with managed care companies, sending in prescriptions, administrative meetings, and other tasks are thrown in, the work hours expand dramatically. Moreover, if your employer doesn’t utilize hospitalists, you may be expected to “round” outside of the 40 hours, which can be particularly burdensome if the employer admits patients to multiple hospitals.

Amanda Hill, JD, owner of Hill Health Law based in Austin, Texas, told this news organization that this predicament isn’t unique to physicians. Exempt employees who don’t clock in and out are often expected to work overtime – that is, to “work as long as it takes to get the job done.” It can affect NPs, PAs, and many others in the health care space. But the number of tasks that fall upon a doctor’s shoulders and the fact that patients’ health and lives are at stake up the ante and make the situation far more difficult for doctors than for employees in other industries.

So it’s important to nail down precise terms in the contract and, if possible, negotiate for a more humane schedule by specifying how the working hours will be used.

“It’s true that a 1.0 FTE definition is too vague,” Ms. Hill said. “I’ve negotiated a lot of contracts where we nail down in writing that the in-office schedule equals 34 hours per week, so the physician is guaranteed an additional 6 hours for administrative time.”

Mr. Hursh usually asks for 32 hours of patient contact per week, which leaves 1 full day per week to catch up on basic administrative tasks. “It’s important for employers to recognize that seeing patients isn’t the only thing a doctor does and there’s a lot of work in addition to face-to-face time,” he said.

But he hasn’t always been successful. One physician client was seeking a workweek consisting of 36 patient contact hours, “which is 90% of the usual FTE of a 40-hour week,” said Mr. Hursh. “But the employer called it ‘part-time,’ as if the doctor were planning to be lying in the sun for the other 4 hours.”

The client decided to accept a 10% pay cut and 10% less vacation to guarantee that she had those extra hours for administrative tasks. “She’s probably working way more than 36 hours a week, but maybe closer to 50 or 60 instead of 70 or more,” he said.
 

Clarify call coverage

Call coverage is typically not included in the hours a physician is contracted to work on a weekly basis. “Most contracts have call, and it’s usually evenly distributed among parties in a practice, but call can expand if another doctor is out sick, for example,” said Ms. Hill.

Sometimes the language in the contract is vague regarding call coverage. “I ask, how many shifts per year is the doctor is expected to work? Then, I try to negotiate extra pay if more shifts arise,” she said. “The hospital or practice may not demand extra call because they don’t want to pay extra money to the physician.”

On the other hand, some physicians may be eager to take extra call if it means extra income.

Ms. Hill stated that one of her clients was being paid as a “part-time, 2-day-a-week provider” but was asked to be on call and take night and weekend work. When you added it all up, she was putting in almost 30 hours a week.

“This is abusive to a provider that works so hard for patients,” Ms. Hill said. “We have to protect them through the contract language, so they have something hard and fast to point to when their administrator pushes them too hard. Doctors should get value for their time.”

Ms. Hill and her client pushed for more money, and the employer gave in. “All we had to do was to point out how many hours she was actually working. She didn’t mind all the extra call, but she wanted to be compensated.” The doctor’s salary was hiked by $25,000.
 

Differences in specialties and settings

There are some specialties where it might be easier to have more defined hours, while other specialties are more challenging. Anu Murthy, Esq., an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics (a national firm that reviews physician contracts) told this news organization that the work of hospitalists, intensivists, and emergency department physicians, for example, is done in shifts, which tend to be fixed hours.

“They need to get their charting completed so that whoever takes over on the next shift has access to the most recent notes about the patient,” she said. By contrast, surgeons can’t always account for how long a given surgery will take. “It could be as long as 9 hours,” she said. Notes need to be written immediately for the sake of the patient’s postsurgical care.

Dermatologists tend to deal with fewer emergencies, compared with other specialists, and it’s easier for their patients to be slotted into an organized schedule. On the other hand, primary care doctors – internists, family practice physicians, and pediatricians – may be seeing 40-50 patients a day, one every 15 minutes.

Practice setting also makes a difference, said Ms. Murthy. Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals or government-run clinics tend to have more rigidly defined hours, compared with other settings, so if you’re in a VA hospital or government-run clinic, work-life balance tends to be better.

Physicians who work remotely via telehealth also tend to have a better work-life balance, compared with those who see patients in person, Ms. Murthy said. But the difference may be in not having to spend extra time commuting to work or interacting with others in the work environment, since some research has suggested that telehealth physicians may actually spend more time engaged in charting after hours, compared with their in-person counterparts.
 

Using scribes to maximize your time

Elliott Trotter, MD, is an emergency medicine physician, associate clinical professor of emergency medicine at Texas Christian University Medical Schools, and founder of the ScribeNest, a Texas-based company that trains health care scribes. He told this news organization that there are ways to maximize one’s time during shifts so that much of the charting can be accomplished during working hours.

“About 28 years ago, I realized that the documentation load for physicians was enormous and at that time I developed the Modern Scribe, using premed students for ‘elbow support’ to help with the workload by documenting the ED encounters in real time during the encounter so I wouldn’t have to do so later.”

Over the years, as EHRs have become more ubiquitous and onerous, the role of the scribe has “evolved from a luxury to a necessity,” said Dr. Trotter. The scribes can actually record the encounter directly into the EHR so that the physician doesn’t have to do so later and doesn’t have to look at a computer screen but can look at the patient during the encounter.

“This enhances communication and has been shown to improve patient care,” he said.

Dr. Trotter said he rarely, if ever, needs to do documentation after hours. “But one of my physician colleagues had over 500 charts in his in-basket on a regular basis, which was overwhelming and untenable.”

The use of AI in health care is rapidly growing. Tools to help hasten the process of taking notes through use of AI-generated summaries is something appealing to many doctors. Ms. Hill warned physicians to “be careful not to rely so heavily on AI that you trust it over your own words.” She noted that it can make mistakes, and the liability always remains with the clinician.
 

Creating time-efficient strategies

Wilfrid Noel Raby, PhD, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., was formerly a psychiatrist in the substance abuse unit at Montefiore Hospital, New York. He told this news organization that he developed a system whereby he rarely had to take work home with him. “I was working only 20 hours a week, but I was usually able to do my charting during those hours, as well as seeing patients,” he said. “I scheduled my appointments and structured a little ‘buffer time’ between them so that I had time to document the first appointment before moving on to the next one.”

There were days when this wasn’t possible because there were too many patients who needed to be seen back-to-back. “So I developed my own template where I could take rapid, very standardized notes that fit into the format of the EHR and met those expectations.” Then, when he had finished seeing patients, he could quickly enter the content of his notes into the EHR. If necessary, he completed his charting on a different day.

Viwek Bisen, DO, assistant professor of psychiatry, Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, is a psychiatrist in the emergency department. “My contract is based on a traditional 40-hour workweek, with 80% of my time allotted to seeing patients and 20% of my time allotted to administration.”

But the way his time actually plays out is that he’s seeing patients during about half of the 32 hours. “The rest of the time, I’m charting, speaking to family members of patients, writing notes, engaging in team meetings, and dealing with insurance companies.” Dr. Bisen has developed his own system of completing his notes while still in the hospital. “I’ve learned to be efficient and manage my time better, so I no longer have to take work home with me.”

“At the end of the day, doctors are people,” Ms. Hill said. “They are not machines. Maybe in residency and fellowship they may grind out impossible shifts with little sleep, but this pace isn’t tenable for an entire career.”

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

What’s in a day’s work? For doctors, it’s typically a mix of seeing patients and completing paperwork and follow-up. Often it extends well past the standard workday.

Dennis Hursh, JD, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, describes one overwhelmed ob.gyn. who recently consulted him for this problem.

“My client had accepted a position in a group practice where his contract stated he would be working during normal office hours, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. – in other words, a 40-hour workweek,” Mr. Hursh said.

But the distressed physician discovered that actually, he was working almost twice as many hours. “He’d get to work early to do charting, then see patients during the 40 hours, perhaps grabbing a quick sandwich for a few minutes – and then stay after 5 [p.m.] for a few more hours when he’d work on charts or other administrative tasks. Then he’d get something to eat, work on more charts, then go to bed, get up in the morning, and repeat.”

Mr. Hursh summarized the client’s life: “Eating, sleeping, practicing clinical medicine, and doing nonclinical tasks.”

It turned out that the 40-hour workweek included in the contract referred to patient-facing hours, not to all of the ancillary tasks that are part of practicing medicine in this day and age. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated story,” said Mr. Hursh.
 

Be aware of what’s in the contract

“The first draft of many standard physician employment contracts often omits mention of patient contact hour requirements and rather uses vague verbiage such as ‘full-time’ employment or ‘1.0 FTE’ – or full-time equivalent – without defining that term,” said Mr. Hursh. Typically, the 40 hours exclude call coverage, but most physicians understand that and, at least at first glance, it all sounds very reasonable.

But once charting, hours on the phone, arguing with managed care companies, sending in prescriptions, administrative meetings, and other tasks are thrown in, the work hours expand dramatically. Moreover, if your employer doesn’t utilize hospitalists, you may be expected to “round” outside of the 40 hours, which can be particularly burdensome if the employer admits patients to multiple hospitals.

Amanda Hill, JD, owner of Hill Health Law based in Austin, Texas, told this news organization that this predicament isn’t unique to physicians. Exempt employees who don’t clock in and out are often expected to work overtime – that is, to “work as long as it takes to get the job done.” It can affect NPs, PAs, and many others in the health care space. But the number of tasks that fall upon a doctor’s shoulders and the fact that patients’ health and lives are at stake up the ante and make the situation far more difficult for doctors than for employees in other industries.

So it’s important to nail down precise terms in the contract and, if possible, negotiate for a more humane schedule by specifying how the working hours will be used.

“It’s true that a 1.0 FTE definition is too vague,” Ms. Hill said. “I’ve negotiated a lot of contracts where we nail down in writing that the in-office schedule equals 34 hours per week, so the physician is guaranteed an additional 6 hours for administrative time.”

Mr. Hursh usually asks for 32 hours of patient contact per week, which leaves 1 full day per week to catch up on basic administrative tasks. “It’s important for employers to recognize that seeing patients isn’t the only thing a doctor does and there’s a lot of work in addition to face-to-face time,” he said.

But he hasn’t always been successful. One physician client was seeking a workweek consisting of 36 patient contact hours, “which is 90% of the usual FTE of a 40-hour week,” said Mr. Hursh. “But the employer called it ‘part-time,’ as if the doctor were planning to be lying in the sun for the other 4 hours.”

The client decided to accept a 10% pay cut and 10% less vacation to guarantee that she had those extra hours for administrative tasks. “She’s probably working way more than 36 hours a week, but maybe closer to 50 or 60 instead of 70 or more,” he said.
 

Clarify call coverage

Call coverage is typically not included in the hours a physician is contracted to work on a weekly basis. “Most contracts have call, and it’s usually evenly distributed among parties in a practice, but call can expand if another doctor is out sick, for example,” said Ms. Hill.

Sometimes the language in the contract is vague regarding call coverage. “I ask, how many shifts per year is the doctor is expected to work? Then, I try to negotiate extra pay if more shifts arise,” she said. “The hospital or practice may not demand extra call because they don’t want to pay extra money to the physician.”

On the other hand, some physicians may be eager to take extra call if it means extra income.

Ms. Hill stated that one of her clients was being paid as a “part-time, 2-day-a-week provider” but was asked to be on call and take night and weekend work. When you added it all up, she was putting in almost 30 hours a week.

“This is abusive to a provider that works so hard for patients,” Ms. Hill said. “We have to protect them through the contract language, so they have something hard and fast to point to when their administrator pushes them too hard. Doctors should get value for their time.”

Ms. Hill and her client pushed for more money, and the employer gave in. “All we had to do was to point out how many hours she was actually working. She didn’t mind all the extra call, but she wanted to be compensated.” The doctor’s salary was hiked by $25,000.
 

Differences in specialties and settings

There are some specialties where it might be easier to have more defined hours, while other specialties are more challenging. Anu Murthy, Esq., an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics (a national firm that reviews physician contracts) told this news organization that the work of hospitalists, intensivists, and emergency department physicians, for example, is done in shifts, which tend to be fixed hours.

“They need to get their charting completed so that whoever takes over on the next shift has access to the most recent notes about the patient,” she said. By contrast, surgeons can’t always account for how long a given surgery will take. “It could be as long as 9 hours,” she said. Notes need to be written immediately for the sake of the patient’s postsurgical care.

Dermatologists tend to deal with fewer emergencies, compared with other specialists, and it’s easier for their patients to be slotted into an organized schedule. On the other hand, primary care doctors – internists, family practice physicians, and pediatricians – may be seeing 40-50 patients a day, one every 15 minutes.

Practice setting also makes a difference, said Ms. Murthy. Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals or government-run clinics tend to have more rigidly defined hours, compared with other settings, so if you’re in a VA hospital or government-run clinic, work-life balance tends to be better.

Physicians who work remotely via telehealth also tend to have a better work-life balance, compared with those who see patients in person, Ms. Murthy said. But the difference may be in not having to spend extra time commuting to work or interacting with others in the work environment, since some research has suggested that telehealth physicians may actually spend more time engaged in charting after hours, compared with their in-person counterparts.
 

Using scribes to maximize your time

Elliott Trotter, MD, is an emergency medicine physician, associate clinical professor of emergency medicine at Texas Christian University Medical Schools, and founder of the ScribeNest, a Texas-based company that trains health care scribes. He told this news organization that there are ways to maximize one’s time during shifts so that much of the charting can be accomplished during working hours.

“About 28 years ago, I realized that the documentation load for physicians was enormous and at that time I developed the Modern Scribe, using premed students for ‘elbow support’ to help with the workload by documenting the ED encounters in real time during the encounter so I wouldn’t have to do so later.”

Over the years, as EHRs have become more ubiquitous and onerous, the role of the scribe has “evolved from a luxury to a necessity,” said Dr. Trotter. The scribes can actually record the encounter directly into the EHR so that the physician doesn’t have to do so later and doesn’t have to look at a computer screen but can look at the patient during the encounter.

“This enhances communication and has been shown to improve patient care,” he said.

Dr. Trotter said he rarely, if ever, needs to do documentation after hours. “But one of my physician colleagues had over 500 charts in his in-basket on a regular basis, which was overwhelming and untenable.”

The use of AI in health care is rapidly growing. Tools to help hasten the process of taking notes through use of AI-generated summaries is something appealing to many doctors. Ms. Hill warned physicians to “be careful not to rely so heavily on AI that you trust it over your own words.” She noted that it can make mistakes, and the liability always remains with the clinician.
 

Creating time-efficient strategies

Wilfrid Noel Raby, PhD, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., was formerly a psychiatrist in the substance abuse unit at Montefiore Hospital, New York. He told this news organization that he developed a system whereby he rarely had to take work home with him. “I was working only 20 hours a week, but I was usually able to do my charting during those hours, as well as seeing patients,” he said. “I scheduled my appointments and structured a little ‘buffer time’ between them so that I had time to document the first appointment before moving on to the next one.”

There were days when this wasn’t possible because there were too many patients who needed to be seen back-to-back. “So I developed my own template where I could take rapid, very standardized notes that fit into the format of the EHR and met those expectations.” Then, when he had finished seeing patients, he could quickly enter the content of his notes into the EHR. If necessary, he completed his charting on a different day.

Viwek Bisen, DO, assistant professor of psychiatry, Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, is a psychiatrist in the emergency department. “My contract is based on a traditional 40-hour workweek, with 80% of my time allotted to seeing patients and 20% of my time allotted to administration.”

But the way his time actually plays out is that he’s seeing patients during about half of the 32 hours. “The rest of the time, I’m charting, speaking to family members of patients, writing notes, engaging in team meetings, and dealing with insurance companies.” Dr. Bisen has developed his own system of completing his notes while still in the hospital. “I’ve learned to be efficient and manage my time better, so I no longer have to take work home with me.”

“At the end of the day, doctors are people,” Ms. Hill said. “They are not machines. Maybe in residency and fellowship they may grind out impossible shifts with little sleep, but this pace isn’t tenable for an entire career.”

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

PHOENIX – New therapies are on the horizon for genetic neuromuscular diseases, and this will raise both hopes for patients and challenges for neurologists. Following successful genetic treatments for ALS, hereditary amyloidosis, and spinal muscular atrophy, therapies for conditions like Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) neuropathy are set to change neurology practice, according to Nicolas Madigan, MBBCh, PhD, who spoke at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM).

“I think we will very soon be in a position to tell these patients that they might actually have a better treatment outcome with a genetic treatment than if they had a sporadic or inflammatory disorder,” said Dr. Madigan, who is an assistant professor of clinical research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, N.Y.

To illustrate how genetic therapies are changing neurology practice, Dr. Madigan focused his talk on CMT neuropathy, which is the most common hereditary neuropathy and, as a result, has become a prime focus of gene therapy development. “In a city of about a million people, there will be 100-800 patients with one of these disorders,” said Dr. Madigan.
 

Case report illustrates a change in approach

There are more than 100 known genes that can contribute to CMT, but about 90% of patients harbor alterations in one of four genes: PMP22, GJB1, MFN2, and MPZ.

The trick is determining which patients are candidates for genetic testing, according to Dr. Madigan. He presented a case report of a 39-year-old woman who had experienced sensory symptoms for years, with a sudden exacerbation along with allodynia following COVID-19 vaccination. Her cerebrospinal fluid protein was high and outside electromyography indicated mild demyelinating neuropathy, consistent with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). After her insurance denied IVIG treatment, she received solumedrol, but her symptoms worsened and she was referred to Dr. Madigan.

After 6 months of methotrexate treatment, her sensory symptoms had not improved, and she was referred for genetic testing, which revealed a truncating mutation of the MPZ gene. “What I learned from this case really was that, in a young patient with conduction slowing, you might be considering CIDP. It might actually be better to do genetic testing first as opposed to starting inflammatory neuropathy type treatments with respect to cost – the genetic tests costs $300 versus tens of thousands of dollars for IVIG – and for [patient] welfare as well,” said Dr. Madigan.

Specifically, when clinical signs point to inherited neuropathy and there is conduction slowing, “the biggest bang for your buck might to be to go straight to PMP22 deletion or duplication testing and see if you can get a diagnosis. If that is negative or the clinical features are not as you might suspect, then, if you have other supportive features such as a very young age or there’s predominance of motor or sensory symptoms, you could test more broadly with a panel. If both of these are negative, then you could consider exome sequencing if the clinical phenotype really is consistent with that,” said Dr. Madigan.
 

The treatment landscape

With a diagnosis in hand, it’s possible to turn to treatment options, and the CMT landscape is promising. Dr. Madigan’s group recently reviewed 286 CMT clinical trials published between 1999 and 2022, 86% of which were interventions. Most were procedures based on carpal or cubital tunnel release, extracorporeal shockwave therapy, or nerve hydrodissection.

The small-molecule drug combination PXT3003 (Pharnext) – comprising baclofen, naltrexone, and sorbitol – downregulated PMP22 mRNA expression and led to improved myelination in animal models. It is currently being studied in a phase 2 clinical trial. Other approaches include supplements, stem cells, anesthetics, and various devices.

Genetic therapy is in the preclinical stage, including gene replacement using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors, gene silencing using antisense oligonucleotides or RNA interference, and gene editing using CRISPR-Cas 9 approaches.

Gene replacement strategies include delivering a normal copy of the gene, a supportive gene, or a gene that delays or reduces axon degeneration. Gene silencing targets PMP22, while CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing aims for PMP22 or neurofilament light polypeptide (NEFL) gene knockout.

The most clinically advanced AAV program delivers neurotrophin-3 via the viral vector to the target muscle, which has been demonstrated to improve symptoms in a mouse model using a muscle-specific promoter. A phase 1/2a trial will test the approach in three patients.

In the antisense space, chemical advances have improved the profile of the RNA, including modifications that influence inflammatory properties, stability, and targeting of specific tissues through conjugation to specific lipids, proteins, or antibodies. A 2018 study sponsored by DTxPharma showed that the formulation could improve outcomes and histologic myelination in a mouse model. In the wake of Novartis’s acquisition of the technology, Dr. Madigan anticipates that clinical trials will likely begin in 2024.

Finally, CRISPR-Cas9 targeting of a promoter region that leads to PMP22 transcription improved remyelination and electrophysiological parameters after injection into the sciatic nerve of mice.
 

A need for genetic counseling

Advances in testing and therapies represent exciting developments, but they also create a need for genetic counselors, according to Dr. Madigan. His clinic has two certified genetic counselors who meet with patients and discuss testing options, including risks and benefits to family members. The counselors also provide psychological support and assist in shared decision-making. They also handle testing paperwork, which eases the burden on physicians.

If the tests are negative, the genetic counselor informs the patient and lets them know of any additional testing required. In case of a positive test, the genetic counselor informs the patient, but the physician also makes contact to discuss clinical implications of the result. “I think it’s working extremely well, and I would encourage all practices to begin to explore those options moving forward,” said Dr. Madigan.

During the Q&A session after the talk, an audience member noted that genetic counselors are not covered by insurance, which places a financial burden on providers to hire them. He noted that his facility has a large clinical genomics department that was able to fund the two counselors, though they are both part-time. “It wasn’t easy. I think there was at least a year of trying to work out how to do it in terms of finding positions and negotiating, but I think once it’s accomplished it’s incredibly cost effective in terms of getting patients what they need from that perspective, and helping with the testing,” said Dr. Madigan.

Dr. Madigan reported no relevant financial disclosures.

PHOENIX – New therapies are on the horizon for genetic neuromuscular diseases, and this will raise both hopes for patients and challenges for neurologists. Following successful genetic treatments for ALS, hereditary amyloidosis, and spinal muscular atrophy, therapies for conditions like Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) neuropathy are set to change neurology practice, according to Nicolas Madigan, MBBCh, PhD, who spoke at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM).

“I think we will very soon be in a position to tell these patients that they might actually have a better treatment outcome with a genetic treatment than if they had a sporadic or inflammatory disorder,” said Dr. Madigan, who is an assistant professor of clinical research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, N.Y.

To illustrate how genetic therapies are changing neurology practice, Dr. Madigan focused his talk on CMT neuropathy, which is the most common hereditary neuropathy and, as a result, has become a prime focus of gene therapy development. “In a city of about a million people, there will be 100-800 patients with one of these disorders,” said Dr. Madigan.
 

Case report illustrates a change in approach

There are more than 100 known genes that can contribute to CMT, but about 90% of patients harbor alterations in one of four genes: PMP22, GJB1, MFN2, and MPZ.

The trick is determining which patients are candidates for genetic testing, according to Dr. Madigan. He presented a case report of a 39-year-old woman who had experienced sensory symptoms for years, with a sudden exacerbation along with allodynia following COVID-19 vaccination. Her cerebrospinal fluid protein was high and outside electromyography indicated mild demyelinating neuropathy, consistent with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). After her insurance denied IVIG treatment, she received solumedrol, but her symptoms worsened and she was referred to Dr. Madigan.

After 6 months of methotrexate treatment, her sensory symptoms had not improved, and she was referred for genetic testing, which revealed a truncating mutation of the MPZ gene. “What I learned from this case really was that, in a young patient with conduction slowing, you might be considering CIDP. It might actually be better to do genetic testing first as opposed to starting inflammatory neuropathy type treatments with respect to cost – the genetic tests costs $300 versus tens of thousands of dollars for IVIG – and for [patient] welfare as well,” said Dr. Madigan.

Specifically, when clinical signs point to inherited neuropathy and there is conduction slowing, “the biggest bang for your buck might to be to go straight to PMP22 deletion or duplication testing and see if you can get a diagnosis. If that is negative or the clinical features are not as you might suspect, then, if you have other supportive features such as a very young age or there’s predominance of motor or sensory symptoms, you could test more broadly with a panel. If both of these are negative, then you could consider exome sequencing if the clinical phenotype really is consistent with that,” said Dr. Madigan.
 

The treatment landscape

With a diagnosis in hand, it’s possible to turn to treatment options, and the CMT landscape is promising. Dr. Madigan’s group recently reviewed 286 CMT clinical trials published between 1999 and 2022, 86% of which were interventions. Most were procedures based on carpal or cubital tunnel release, extracorporeal shockwave therapy, or nerve hydrodissection.

The small-molecule drug combination PXT3003 (Pharnext) – comprising baclofen, naltrexone, and sorbitol – downregulated PMP22 mRNA expression and led to improved myelination in animal models. It is currently being studied in a phase 2 clinical trial. Other approaches include supplements, stem cells, anesthetics, and various devices.

Genetic therapy is in the preclinical stage, including gene replacement using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors, gene silencing using antisense oligonucleotides or RNA interference, and gene editing using CRISPR-Cas 9 approaches.

Gene replacement strategies include delivering a normal copy of the gene, a supportive gene, or a gene that delays or reduces axon degeneration. Gene silencing targets PMP22, while CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing aims for PMP22 or neurofilament light polypeptide (NEFL) gene knockout.

The most clinically advanced AAV program delivers neurotrophin-3 via the viral vector to the target muscle, which has been demonstrated to improve symptoms in a mouse model using a muscle-specific promoter. A phase 1/2a trial will test the approach in three patients.

In the antisense space, chemical advances have improved the profile of the RNA, including modifications that influence inflammatory properties, stability, and targeting of specific tissues through conjugation to specific lipids, proteins, or antibodies. A 2018 study sponsored by DTxPharma showed that the formulation could improve outcomes and histologic myelination in a mouse model. In the wake of Novartis’s acquisition of the technology, Dr. Madigan anticipates that clinical trials will likely begin in 2024.

Finally, CRISPR-Cas9 targeting of a promoter region that leads to PMP22 transcription improved remyelination and electrophysiological parameters after injection into the sciatic nerve of mice.
 

A need for genetic counseling

Advances in testing and therapies represent exciting developments, but they also create a need for genetic counselors, according to Dr. Madigan. His clinic has two certified genetic counselors who meet with patients and discuss testing options, including risks and benefits to family members. The counselors also provide psychological support and assist in shared decision-making. They also handle testing paperwork, which eases the burden on physicians.

If the tests are negative, the genetic counselor informs the patient and lets them know of any additional testing required. In case of a positive test, the genetic counselor informs the patient, but the physician also makes contact to discuss clinical implications of the result. “I think it’s working extremely well, and I would encourage all practices to begin to explore those options moving forward,” said Dr. Madigan.

During the Q&A session after the talk, an audience member noted that genetic counselors are not covered by insurance, which places a financial burden on providers to hire them. He noted that his facility has a large clinical genomics department that was able to fund the two counselors, though they are both part-time. “It wasn’t easy. I think there was at least a year of trying to work out how to do it in terms of finding positions and negotiating, but I think once it’s accomplished it’s incredibly cost effective in terms of getting patients what they need from that perspective, and helping with the testing,” said Dr. Madigan.

Dr. Madigan reported no relevant financial disclosures.

PHOENIX – New therapies are on the horizon for genetic neuromuscular diseases, and this will raise both hopes for patients and challenges for neurologists. Following successful genetic treatments for ALS, hereditary amyloidosis, and spinal muscular atrophy, therapies for conditions like Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) neuropathy are set to change neurology practice, according to Nicolas Madigan, MBBCh, PhD, who spoke at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM).

“I think we will very soon be in a position to tell these patients that they might actually have a better treatment outcome with a genetic treatment than if they had a sporadic or inflammatory disorder,” said Dr. Madigan, who is an assistant professor of clinical research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, N.Y.

To illustrate how genetic therapies are changing neurology practice, Dr. Madigan focused his talk on CMT neuropathy, which is the most common hereditary neuropathy and, as a result, has become a prime focus of gene therapy development. “In a city of about a million people, there will be 100-800 patients with one of these disorders,” said Dr. Madigan.
 

Case report illustrates a change in approach

There are more than 100 known genes that can contribute to CMT, but about 90% of patients harbor alterations in one of four genes: PMP22, GJB1, MFN2, and MPZ.

The trick is determining which patients are candidates for genetic testing, according to Dr. Madigan. He presented a case report of a 39-year-old woman who had experienced sensory symptoms for years, with a sudden exacerbation along with allodynia following COVID-19 vaccination. Her cerebrospinal fluid protein was high and outside electromyography indicated mild demyelinating neuropathy, consistent with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). After her insurance denied IVIG treatment, she received solumedrol, but her symptoms worsened and she was referred to Dr. Madigan.

After 6 months of methotrexate treatment, her sensory symptoms had not improved, and she was referred for genetic testing, which revealed a truncating mutation of the MPZ gene. “What I learned from this case really was that, in a young patient with conduction slowing, you might be considering CIDP. It might actually be better to do genetic testing first as opposed to starting inflammatory neuropathy type treatments with respect to cost – the genetic tests costs $300 versus tens of thousands of dollars for IVIG – and for [patient] welfare as well,” said Dr. Madigan.

Specifically, when clinical signs point to inherited neuropathy and there is conduction slowing, “the biggest bang for your buck might to be to go straight to PMP22 deletion or duplication testing and see if you can get a diagnosis. If that is negative or the clinical features are not as you might suspect, then, if you have other supportive features such as a very young age or there’s predominance of motor or sensory symptoms, you could test more broadly with a panel. If both of these are negative, then you could consider exome sequencing if the clinical phenotype really is consistent with that,” said Dr. Madigan.
 

The treatment landscape

With a diagnosis in hand, it’s possible to turn to treatment options, and the CMT landscape is promising. Dr. Madigan’s group recently reviewed 286 CMT clinical trials published between 1999 and 2022, 86% of which were interventions. Most were procedures based on carpal or cubital tunnel release, extracorporeal shockwave therapy, or nerve hydrodissection.

The small-molecule drug combination PXT3003 (Pharnext) – comprising baclofen, naltrexone, and sorbitol – downregulated PMP22 mRNA expression and led to improved myelination in animal models. It is currently being studied in a phase 2 clinical trial. Other approaches include supplements, stem cells, anesthetics, and various devices.

Genetic therapy is in the preclinical stage, including gene replacement using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors, gene silencing using antisense oligonucleotides or RNA interference, and gene editing using CRISPR-Cas 9 approaches.

Gene replacement strategies include delivering a normal copy of the gene, a supportive gene, or a gene that delays or reduces axon degeneration. Gene silencing targets PMP22, while CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing aims for PMP22 or neurofilament light polypeptide (NEFL) gene knockout.

The most clinically advanced AAV program delivers neurotrophin-3 via the viral vector to the target muscle, which has been demonstrated to improve symptoms in a mouse model using a muscle-specific promoter. A phase 1/2a trial will test the approach in three patients.

In the antisense space, chemical advances have improved the profile of the RNA, including modifications that influence inflammatory properties, stability, and targeting of specific tissues through conjugation to specific lipids, proteins, or antibodies. A 2018 study sponsored by DTxPharma showed that the formulation could improve outcomes and histologic myelination in a mouse model. In the wake of Novartis’s acquisition of the technology, Dr. Madigan anticipates that clinical trials will likely begin in 2024.

Finally, CRISPR-Cas9 targeting of a promoter region that leads to PMP22 transcription improved remyelination and electrophysiological parameters after injection into the sciatic nerve of mice.
 

A need for genetic counseling

Advances in testing and therapies represent exciting developments, but they also create a need for genetic counselors, according to Dr. Madigan. His clinic has two certified genetic counselors who meet with patients and discuss testing options, including risks and benefits to family members. The counselors also provide psychological support and assist in shared decision-making. They also handle testing paperwork, which eases the burden on physicians.

If the tests are negative, the genetic counselor informs the patient and lets them know of any additional testing required. In case of a positive test, the genetic counselor informs the patient, but the physician also makes contact to discuss clinical implications of the result. “I think it’s working extremely well, and I would encourage all practices to begin to explore those options moving forward,” said Dr. Madigan.

During the Q&A session after the talk, an audience member noted that genetic counselors are not covered by insurance, which places a financial burden on providers to hire them. He noted that his facility has a large clinical genomics department that was able to fund the two counselors, though they are both part-time. “It wasn’t easy. I think there was at least a year of trying to work out how to do it in terms of finding positions and negotiating, but I think once it’s accomplished it’s incredibly cost effective in terms of getting patients what they need from that perspective, and helping with the testing,” said Dr. Madigan.

Dr. Madigan reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a 45% increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an outcome that’s linked to cardiovascular risk factors and multi-comorbidity, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From over 4.3 million people in the UK primary electronic health record (EHR) database, researchers identified 233,833 (5.4%) with AF (mean age, 74.2 years) and randomly selected one age- and sex-matched control person without AF for each AF case patient.
• The primary outcome was incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
• The authors adjusted for age, sex, year at study entry, socioeconomic status, smoking, and a number of comorbid conditions.
• During a median of 5.3 years of follow-up, there were 4,269 incident MCI cases among both AF and non-AF patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with AF had a higher risk of MCI than that of those without AF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.56).
• Besides AF, older age (risk ratio [RR], 1.08) and history of depression (RR, 1.44) were associated with greater risk of MCI, as were female sex, greater socioeconomic deprivation, stroke, and multimorbidity, including, for example, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and peripheral artery disease (all P < .001).
• Individuals with AF who received oral anticoagulants or amiodarone were not at increased risk of MCI, as was the case for those treated with digoxin.
• Individuals with AF and MCI were at greater risk of dementia (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42). Sex, smoking, chronic kidney disease, and multi-comorbidity were among factors linked to elevated dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings emphasize the association of multi-comorbidity and cardiovascular risk factors with development of MCI and progression to dementia in AF patients, the authors wrote. They noted that the data suggest combining anticoagulation and symptom and comorbidity management may prevent cognitive deterioration.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Sheng-Chia Chung, PhD, Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, and colleagues. It was published online Oct. 25, 2023, as a research letter in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Advances. 

LIMITATIONS:

The EHR dataset may have lacked granularity and detail, and some risk factors or comorbidities may not have been measured. While those with AF receiving digoxin or amiodarone treatment had no higher risk of MCI than their non-AF peers, the study’s observational design and very wide confidence intervals for these subgroups prevent making solid inferences about causality or a potential protective role of these drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Chung is supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Author Rui Providencia, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, is supported by the University College London British Heart Foundation and NIHR. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a 45% increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an outcome that’s linked to cardiovascular risk factors and multi-comorbidity, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From over 4.3 million people in the UK primary electronic health record (EHR) database, researchers identified 233,833 (5.4%) with AF (mean age, 74.2 years) and randomly selected one age- and sex-matched control person without AF for each AF case patient.
• The primary outcome was incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
• The authors adjusted for age, sex, year at study entry, socioeconomic status, smoking, and a number of comorbid conditions.
• During a median of 5.3 years of follow-up, there were 4,269 incident MCI cases among both AF and non-AF patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with AF had a higher risk of MCI than that of those without AF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.56).
• Besides AF, older age (risk ratio [RR], 1.08) and history of depression (RR, 1.44) were associated with greater risk of MCI, as were female sex, greater socioeconomic deprivation, stroke, and multimorbidity, including, for example, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and peripheral artery disease (all P < .001).
• Individuals with AF who received oral anticoagulants or amiodarone were not at increased risk of MCI, as was the case for those treated with digoxin.
• Individuals with AF and MCI were at greater risk of dementia (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42). Sex, smoking, chronic kidney disease, and multi-comorbidity were among factors linked to elevated dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings emphasize the association of multi-comorbidity and cardiovascular risk factors with development of MCI and progression to dementia in AF patients, the authors wrote. They noted that the data suggest combining anticoagulation and symptom and comorbidity management may prevent cognitive deterioration.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Sheng-Chia Chung, PhD, Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, and colleagues. It was published online Oct. 25, 2023, as a research letter in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Advances. 

LIMITATIONS:

The EHR dataset may have lacked granularity and detail, and some risk factors or comorbidities may not have been measured. While those with AF receiving digoxin or amiodarone treatment had no higher risk of MCI than their non-AF peers, the study’s observational design and very wide confidence intervals for these subgroups prevent making solid inferences about causality or a potential protective role of these drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Chung is supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Author Rui Providencia, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, is supported by the University College London British Heart Foundation and NIHR. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a 45% increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an outcome that’s linked to cardiovascular risk factors and multi-comorbidity, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From over 4.3 million people in the UK primary electronic health record (EHR) database, researchers identified 233,833 (5.4%) with AF (mean age, 74.2 years) and randomly selected one age- and sex-matched control person without AF for each AF case patient.
• The primary outcome was incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
• The authors adjusted for age, sex, year at study entry, socioeconomic status, smoking, and a number of comorbid conditions.
• During a median of 5.3 years of follow-up, there were 4,269 incident MCI cases among both AF and non-AF patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with AF had a higher risk of MCI than that of those without AF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.56).
• Besides AF, older age (risk ratio [RR], 1.08) and history of depression (RR, 1.44) were associated with greater risk of MCI, as were female sex, greater socioeconomic deprivation, stroke, and multimorbidity, including, for example, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and peripheral artery disease (all P < .001).
• Individuals with AF who received oral anticoagulants or amiodarone were not at increased risk of MCI, as was the case for those treated with digoxin.
• Individuals with AF and MCI were at greater risk of dementia (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42). Sex, smoking, chronic kidney disease, and multi-comorbidity were among factors linked to elevated dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings emphasize the association of multi-comorbidity and cardiovascular risk factors with development of MCI and progression to dementia in AF patients, the authors wrote. They noted that the data suggest combining anticoagulation and symptom and comorbidity management may prevent cognitive deterioration.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Sheng-Chia Chung, PhD, Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, and colleagues. It was published online Oct. 25, 2023, as a research letter in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Advances. 

LIMITATIONS:

The EHR dataset may have lacked granularity and detail, and some risk factors or comorbidities may not have been measured. While those with AF receiving digoxin or amiodarone treatment had no higher risk of MCI than their non-AF peers, the study’s observational design and very wide confidence intervals for these subgroups prevent making solid inferences about causality or a potential protective role of these drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Chung is supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Author Rui Providencia, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, is supported by the University College London British Heart Foundation and NIHR. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients age 65 and older who receive thyroid hormone therapy and experience low thyrotropin are at increased risk for dementia and other cognitive problems, according to new research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study found that these patients with thyrotoxicosis had a higher likelihood of incident cognitive disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.64; P < .001). Broken down between internal and external causes of thyrotoxicosis, exogenous thyrotoxicosis continued to be a significant risk factor (aHR, 1.34: 95% CI, 1.10-1.63; P = .003), while endogenous thyrotoxicosis did not show a statistically significant risk estimates (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.96-1.98; P = .08).

The study also found that women were more likely to have low levels of thyrotropin (thyroid-stimulating hormone/TSH) than men and were more likely to be overtreated.

Previous studies looking at the correlation between hyperthyroidism and cognitive disorders often did not include participants who were already taking thyroid hormones, according to Jennifer S. Mammen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the Asthma and Allergy Center at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the senior author of the study.

“The fact that we see the signal both in people who are being overtreated with thyroid hormone and in people who have endogenous hyperthyroidism is one way that we think that this supports the fact that it’s not just confounding, it’s not just bias,” Dr. Mammen said. “There’s two different sources of hyperthyroidism, and they’re both showing the same relationship.”

In the study, Dr. Mammen and colleagues analyzed electronic health records for patients aged 65 years and older who received primary care in the Johns Hopkins Community Physicians Network over a 10-year period starting in 2014. Patients had to have a minimum of two visits 30 days apart. None had a history of low TSH levels or cognitive disorder diagnoses within 6 months of their first doctor visit.

More than 65,000 patients were included in the study. Slightly more than half (56%) were female, almost 70% were White, 19.3% were Black, 4.6% were Asian, and 0.4% were American Indian. Almost 25,000 low TSH measurements among 2,710 patients were recorded during the study period. The majority of low TSH measurements were exogenous (14,875), followed by origins of unknown cause (5,833), and endogenous (4,159).

During the follow-up period, 7.2% (4,779) patients received a new cognitive disorder diagnosis, which was dementia in 77% of cases.

Dr. Mammen said primary care physicians should carefully consider whether thyroid hormone therapy is necessary for older patients, and, if so, great care should be taken to avoid overtreatment.

“This is yet another reason for us to be vigilant about not overtreating people with thyroid hormone, especially in older adults,” Dr. Mammen said. “We already know that atrial fibrillation rates are increased in people who are hyperthyroid. We know that fracture and osteoporosis is affected by hyperthyroidism. And now we also have an association with higher rates of cognitive disorders.”

Taking a cautious approach to prescribing thyroid hormone therapy for older patients is paramount, according to Jean Chen, MD, partner at Texas Diabetes & Endocrinology, who was not affiliated with the study.

“All medical providers need to be aware that the 65 and older population does not need to be treated as aggressively with their thyroid hormone,” Dr. Chen said. “We are finding more and more complications from overtreatment rather than benefit in this population.”

Often, older patients may complain of symptoms such as constipation, feeling cold, or tiredness, which can be symptoms of hypothyroidism. But these symptoms could also be from anemia, vitamin deficiencies, depression, perimenopause, menopause, insulin resistance, and sleep apnea. If necessary, Dr. Chen recommended primary care physicians consult with an endocrinologist regarding a possible treatment plan and making a differential diagnosis.

In addition, Dr. Chen said other studies have shown that treating patients with thyroid hormone either did not resolve the condition or negatively impacted anxiety, muscle strength, and bone density, or it increased the risk for arrhythmia. Therefore, it’s important to weight the risks versus the benefits.

“There’s so much gray zone here,” Dr. Chen said.

The study was supported by the Richman Family Precision Medicine Center of Excellence in Alzheimer’s Disease, the Richman Family Foundation, the Rick Sharp Alzheimer’s Foundation, the Sharp Family Foundation, among others. The work was also supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported personal fees from Karuna, MapLight Therapeutics, Axsome Therapeutics, GIA, GW Research Limited, Merck, EXCIVA, Otsuka, IntraCellular Therapies, and Medesis Pharma for consulting for treatment development in Alzheimer’s disease outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients age 65 and older who receive thyroid hormone therapy and experience low thyrotropin are at increased risk for dementia and other cognitive problems, according to new research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study found that these patients with thyrotoxicosis had a higher likelihood of incident cognitive disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.64; P < .001). Broken down between internal and external causes of thyrotoxicosis, exogenous thyrotoxicosis continued to be a significant risk factor (aHR, 1.34: 95% CI, 1.10-1.63; P = .003), while endogenous thyrotoxicosis did not show a statistically significant risk estimates (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.96-1.98; P = .08).

The study also found that women were more likely to have low levels of thyrotropin (thyroid-stimulating hormone/TSH) than men and were more likely to be overtreated.

Previous studies looking at the correlation between hyperthyroidism and cognitive disorders often did not include participants who were already taking thyroid hormones, according to Jennifer S. Mammen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the Asthma and Allergy Center at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the senior author of the study.

“The fact that we see the signal both in people who are being overtreated with thyroid hormone and in people who have endogenous hyperthyroidism is one way that we think that this supports the fact that it’s not just confounding, it’s not just bias,” Dr. Mammen said. “There’s two different sources of hyperthyroidism, and they’re both showing the same relationship.”

In the study, Dr. Mammen and colleagues analyzed electronic health records for patients aged 65 years and older who received primary care in the Johns Hopkins Community Physicians Network over a 10-year period starting in 2014. Patients had to have a minimum of two visits 30 days apart. None had a history of low TSH levels or cognitive disorder diagnoses within 6 months of their first doctor visit.

More than 65,000 patients were included in the study. Slightly more than half (56%) were female, almost 70% were White, 19.3% were Black, 4.6% were Asian, and 0.4% were American Indian. Almost 25,000 low TSH measurements among 2,710 patients were recorded during the study period. The majority of low TSH measurements were exogenous (14,875), followed by origins of unknown cause (5,833), and endogenous (4,159).

During the follow-up period, 7.2% (4,779) patients received a new cognitive disorder diagnosis, which was dementia in 77% of cases.

Dr. Mammen said primary care physicians should carefully consider whether thyroid hormone therapy is necessary for older patients, and, if so, great care should be taken to avoid overtreatment.

“This is yet another reason for us to be vigilant about not overtreating people with thyroid hormone, especially in older adults,” Dr. Mammen said. “We already know that atrial fibrillation rates are increased in people who are hyperthyroid. We know that fracture and osteoporosis is affected by hyperthyroidism. And now we also have an association with higher rates of cognitive disorders.”

Taking a cautious approach to prescribing thyroid hormone therapy for older patients is paramount, according to Jean Chen, MD, partner at Texas Diabetes & Endocrinology, who was not affiliated with the study.

“All medical providers need to be aware that the 65 and older population does not need to be treated as aggressively with their thyroid hormone,” Dr. Chen said. “We are finding more and more complications from overtreatment rather than benefit in this population.”

Often, older patients may complain of symptoms such as constipation, feeling cold, or tiredness, which can be symptoms of hypothyroidism. But these symptoms could also be from anemia, vitamin deficiencies, depression, perimenopause, menopause, insulin resistance, and sleep apnea. If necessary, Dr. Chen recommended primary care physicians consult with an endocrinologist regarding a possible treatment plan and making a differential diagnosis.

In addition, Dr. Chen said other studies have shown that treating patients with thyroid hormone either did not resolve the condition or negatively impacted anxiety, muscle strength, and bone density, or it increased the risk for arrhythmia. Therefore, it’s important to weight the risks versus the benefits.

“There’s so much gray zone here,” Dr. Chen said.

The study was supported by the Richman Family Precision Medicine Center of Excellence in Alzheimer’s Disease, the Richman Family Foundation, the Rick Sharp Alzheimer’s Foundation, the Sharp Family Foundation, among others. The work was also supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported personal fees from Karuna, MapLight Therapeutics, Axsome Therapeutics, GIA, GW Research Limited, Merck, EXCIVA, Otsuka, IntraCellular Therapies, and Medesis Pharma for consulting for treatment development in Alzheimer’s disease outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients age 65 and older who receive thyroid hormone therapy and experience low thyrotropin are at increased risk for dementia and other cognitive problems, according to new research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study found that these patients with thyrotoxicosis had a higher likelihood of incident cognitive disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.64; P < .001). Broken down between internal and external causes of thyrotoxicosis, exogenous thyrotoxicosis continued to be a significant risk factor (aHR, 1.34: 95% CI, 1.10-1.63; P = .003), while endogenous thyrotoxicosis did not show a statistically significant risk estimates (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.96-1.98; P = .08).

The study also found that women were more likely to have low levels of thyrotropin (thyroid-stimulating hormone/TSH) than men and were more likely to be overtreated.

Previous studies looking at the correlation between hyperthyroidism and cognitive disorders often did not include participants who were already taking thyroid hormones, according to Jennifer S. Mammen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the Asthma and Allergy Center at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the senior author of the study.

“The fact that we see the signal both in people who are being overtreated with thyroid hormone and in people who have endogenous hyperthyroidism is one way that we think that this supports the fact that it’s not just confounding, it’s not just bias,” Dr. Mammen said. “There’s two different sources of hyperthyroidism, and they’re both showing the same relationship.”

In the study, Dr. Mammen and colleagues analyzed electronic health records for patients aged 65 years and older who received primary care in the Johns Hopkins Community Physicians Network over a 10-year period starting in 2014. Patients had to have a minimum of two visits 30 days apart. None had a history of low TSH levels or cognitive disorder diagnoses within 6 months of their first doctor visit.

More than 65,000 patients were included in the study. Slightly more than half (56%) were female, almost 70% were White, 19.3% were Black, 4.6% were Asian, and 0.4% were American Indian. Almost 25,000 low TSH measurements among 2,710 patients were recorded during the study period. The majority of low TSH measurements were exogenous (14,875), followed by origins of unknown cause (5,833), and endogenous (4,159).

During the follow-up period, 7.2% (4,779) patients received a new cognitive disorder diagnosis, which was dementia in 77% of cases.

Dr. Mammen said primary care physicians should carefully consider whether thyroid hormone therapy is necessary for older patients, and, if so, great care should be taken to avoid overtreatment.

“This is yet another reason for us to be vigilant about not overtreating people with thyroid hormone, especially in older adults,” Dr. Mammen said. “We already know that atrial fibrillation rates are increased in people who are hyperthyroid. We know that fracture and osteoporosis is affected by hyperthyroidism. And now we also have an association with higher rates of cognitive disorders.”

Taking a cautious approach to prescribing thyroid hormone therapy for older patients is paramount, according to Jean Chen, MD, partner at Texas Diabetes & Endocrinology, who was not affiliated with the study.

“All medical providers need to be aware that the 65 and older population does not need to be treated as aggressively with their thyroid hormone,” Dr. Chen said. “We are finding more and more complications from overtreatment rather than benefit in this population.”

Often, older patients may complain of symptoms such as constipation, feeling cold, or tiredness, which can be symptoms of hypothyroidism. But these symptoms could also be from anemia, vitamin deficiencies, depression, perimenopause, menopause, insulin resistance, and sleep apnea. If necessary, Dr. Chen recommended primary care physicians consult with an endocrinologist regarding a possible treatment plan and making a differential diagnosis.

In addition, Dr. Chen said other studies have shown that treating patients with thyroid hormone either did not resolve the condition or negatively impacted anxiety, muscle strength, and bone density, or it increased the risk for arrhythmia. Therefore, it’s important to weight the risks versus the benefits.

“There’s so much gray zone here,” Dr. Chen said.

The study was supported by the Richman Family Precision Medicine Center of Excellence in Alzheimer’s Disease, the Richman Family Foundation, the Rick Sharp Alzheimer’s Foundation, the Sharp Family Foundation, among others. The work was also supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported personal fees from Karuna, MapLight Therapeutics, Axsome Therapeutics, GIA, GW Research Limited, Merck, EXCIVA, Otsuka, IntraCellular Therapies, and Medesis Pharma for consulting for treatment development in Alzheimer’s disease outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – Open-label extension studies of two neonatal Fc receptor–blocking antibodies showed good safety and efficacy in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). The two drugs, rozanolixizumab (Rystiggo, UCB) and efgartigimod PH20 (Vyvgart, Argenx SE), received Food and Drug Administration approval in June 2023 and December 2021, respectively, for the treatment of MG.

The neonatal Fc receptor binds to IgG within cells and recycles it back into the blood, leading to increased serum levels. The antibodies bind to the neonatal Fc receptor and promote its degradation, therefore preventing IgG recycling without interfering with its production. They do not affect the levels of other immunoglobulin isotypes.

At the 2023 annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM), researchers presented data from an open-label extension study following the phase 3 MycarinG trial of rozanolixizumab and the ADAPT-SC+ study of efgartigimod.

In the MycarinG study, rozanolixizumab “showed both statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in multiple endpoints,” said Vera Bril, MD, during a presentation of the results.

Rozanolixizumab is approved for MG patients who are anti–acetylcholine receptor (AchR) or anti–muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) antibody positive. Efgartigimod is approved for MG patients who are AChR positive.

After completing MycarinG, patients were eligible to enroll in one of two open-label studies, one of each dose.

The new efficacy analysis focused on 110 patients who underwent two or more consecutive symptom-driven treatment cycles. A safety analysis focused on 188 patients who received at least one cycle of treatment.

“The post hoc analysis showed that the clinically meaningful improvements in the generalized myasthenia gravis symptoms were maintained over time for the cohort across rozanolixizumab cycles, while individual patients move through the consecutive treatment cycles, rozanolixizumab had an acceptable safety profile that was maintained across repeated treatments cycles. This is consistent with previous results of rozanolixizumab,” said Dr. Bril, who is a clinical investigator at University of Toronto
 

A reduction in steroid use?

During the Q&A session, George Small, MD, asked if the study had shown a reduction in steroid use among patients with MG.

As clinical associate director of neurology at Allegheny Medical Center, Pittsburgh, he has overseen the care of several hundred patients with generalized MG, as well as participated in clinical trials. “Many physicians use steroids for very quick responses in their patients. I love steroids and I hate steroids. I’ve helped save people’s lives with them, but I’ve also probably hastened their demise, unfortunately, because of the long-term side effects of the medications. Many neurologists in the community will over-utilize steroids because they don’t have access to these more expensive therapies. I look forward to both using these medications more as they become FDA approved and being an advocate for them, because it is my belief that they help decrease the use of steroids,” said Dr. Small in an interview.

Even if new medications do reduce steroid use, there remains a hurdle with insurance companies. “I’ve felt I’ve been forced to use treatments that I know may not be efficacious in the short term in order to get authorization for more expensive therapies that I use now. I’ve had patients admitted to the hospital as I’ve tried to jump through hoops that the insurance companies demanded,” said Dr. Small.
 

Clinical improvements seen

In the MycarinG study, patients received weekly injections of 7 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg rozanolixizumab, or placebo over a 6-week period. Both treatment groups had reductions in Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scores compared with placebo.

MG-ADL and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) scores were consistent across treatment cycles. The mean MG-ADL score dropped by about 4 points at week 6. At around week 10, the mean improvement declined to 2 points, and then by week 14 it increased to 3 points, where it remained consistent out to 50 weeks. A similar pattern was seen in QMG scores, with an approximate 5-point drop at 6 weeks, then about a 1.5-point improvement at 10 weeks, then a mean decrease of around 4 points that stayed stable out to 50 weeks.

Over all cycles of treatment, 89.9% of patients experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event, including 22.3% who had a serious TEAE; the study dropout rate because of TEAEs was 15.4%.

In the ADAPT-SC study, 110 patients were randomized to 10 mg/kg intravenous efgartigimod or 1,000 mg efgartigimod PH20, which is formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase to allow for rapid administration of larger volumes. After completion of ADAPT-SC, 105 patients from both groups and an additional 79 patients entered the open-label extension study with 1,000 mg efgartigimod PH20.

The study included 141 patients who were AChR-Ab positive and 38 who were AChR-Ab negative. In the first cycle, 34.6% experienced an injection-site reaction, which steadily dropped to 11.5% by the sixth cycle. After each cycle of treatment, the mean change in MG-ADL from study baseline at week 4 was between 4.1 and 4.7 points. The mean change in Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life 15-Item Questionnaire revisited from study baseline at week 4 was between 5.1 and 6.5 points. The mean change in EuroQoL 5-dimension, 5-level visual analog scale was between 12.3 and 16.0 points at week 4.

MyCarinG was funded by UCB Pharma. ADAPT-SC was funded by Argenx SE. Dr. Bril has financial relationships with Behring, Argenyx, Alexion, Immunovant, Alnylam, Akcea, Takeda, Sanofi, Ionis, Roche, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Momenta, Pfizer, CSL Behring, Grifols, Powell Mansfield, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Small is on the speaker’s bureau for Alexion.

PHOENIX – Open-label extension studies of two neonatal Fc receptor–blocking antibodies showed good safety and efficacy in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). The two drugs, rozanolixizumab (Rystiggo, UCB) and efgartigimod PH20 (Vyvgart, Argenx SE), received Food and Drug Administration approval in June 2023 and December 2021, respectively, for the treatment of MG.

The neonatal Fc receptor binds to IgG within cells and recycles it back into the blood, leading to increased serum levels. The antibodies bind to the neonatal Fc receptor and promote its degradation, therefore preventing IgG recycling without interfering with its production. They do not affect the levels of other immunoglobulin isotypes.

At the 2023 annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM), researchers presented data from an open-label extension study following the phase 3 MycarinG trial of rozanolixizumab and the ADAPT-SC+ study of efgartigimod.

In the MycarinG study, rozanolixizumab “showed both statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in multiple endpoints,” said Vera Bril, MD, during a presentation of the results.

Rozanolixizumab is approved for MG patients who are anti–acetylcholine receptor (AchR) or anti–muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) antibody positive. Efgartigimod is approved for MG patients who are AChR positive.

After completing MycarinG, patients were eligible to enroll in one of two open-label studies, one of each dose.

The new efficacy analysis focused on 110 patients who underwent two or more consecutive symptom-driven treatment cycles. A safety analysis focused on 188 patients who received at least one cycle of treatment.

“The post hoc analysis showed that the clinically meaningful improvements in the generalized myasthenia gravis symptoms were maintained over time for the cohort across rozanolixizumab cycles, while individual patients move through the consecutive treatment cycles, rozanolixizumab had an acceptable safety profile that was maintained across repeated treatments cycles. This is consistent with previous results of rozanolixizumab,” said Dr. Bril, who is a clinical investigator at University of Toronto
 

A reduction in steroid use?

During the Q&A session, George Small, MD, asked if the study had shown a reduction in steroid use among patients with MG.

As clinical associate director of neurology at Allegheny Medical Center, Pittsburgh, he has overseen the care of several hundred patients with generalized MG, as well as participated in clinical trials. “Many physicians use steroids for very quick responses in their patients. I love steroids and I hate steroids. I’ve helped save people’s lives with them, but I’ve also probably hastened their demise, unfortunately, because of the long-term side effects of the medications. Many neurologists in the community will over-utilize steroids because they don’t have access to these more expensive therapies. I look forward to both using these medications more as they become FDA approved and being an advocate for them, because it is my belief that they help decrease the use of steroids,” said Dr. Small in an interview.

Even if new medications do reduce steroid use, there remains a hurdle with insurance companies. “I’ve felt I’ve been forced to use treatments that I know may not be efficacious in the short term in order to get authorization for more expensive therapies that I use now. I’ve had patients admitted to the hospital as I’ve tried to jump through hoops that the insurance companies demanded,” said Dr. Small.
 

Clinical improvements seen

In the MycarinG study, patients received weekly injections of 7 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg rozanolixizumab, or placebo over a 6-week period. Both treatment groups had reductions in Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scores compared with placebo.

MG-ADL and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) scores were consistent across treatment cycles. The mean MG-ADL score dropped by about 4 points at week 6. At around week 10, the mean improvement declined to 2 points, and then by week 14 it increased to 3 points, where it remained consistent out to 50 weeks. A similar pattern was seen in QMG scores, with an approximate 5-point drop at 6 weeks, then about a 1.5-point improvement at 10 weeks, then a mean decrease of around 4 points that stayed stable out to 50 weeks.

Over all cycles of treatment, 89.9% of patients experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event, including 22.3% who had a serious TEAE; the study dropout rate because of TEAEs was 15.4%.

In the ADAPT-SC study, 110 patients were randomized to 10 mg/kg intravenous efgartigimod or 1,000 mg efgartigimod PH20, which is formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase to allow for rapid administration of larger volumes. After completion of ADAPT-SC, 105 patients from both groups and an additional 79 patients entered the open-label extension study with 1,000 mg efgartigimod PH20.

The study included 141 patients who were AChR-Ab positive and 38 who were AChR-Ab negative. In the first cycle, 34.6% experienced an injection-site reaction, which steadily dropped to 11.5% by the sixth cycle. After each cycle of treatment, the mean change in MG-ADL from study baseline at week 4 was between 4.1 and 4.7 points. The mean change in Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life 15-Item Questionnaire revisited from study baseline at week 4 was between 5.1 and 6.5 points. The mean change in EuroQoL 5-dimension, 5-level visual analog scale was between 12.3 and 16.0 points at week 4.

MyCarinG was funded by UCB Pharma. ADAPT-SC was funded by Argenx SE. Dr. Bril has financial relationships with Behring, Argenyx, Alexion, Immunovant, Alnylam, Akcea, Takeda, Sanofi, Ionis, Roche, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Momenta, Pfizer, CSL Behring, Grifols, Powell Mansfield, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Small is on the speaker’s bureau for Alexion.

PHOENIX – Open-label extension studies of two neonatal Fc receptor–blocking antibodies showed good safety and efficacy in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). The two drugs, rozanolixizumab (Rystiggo, UCB) and efgartigimod PH20 (Vyvgart, Argenx SE), received Food and Drug Administration approval in June 2023 and December 2021, respectively, for the treatment of MG.

The neonatal Fc receptor binds to IgG within cells and recycles it back into the blood, leading to increased serum levels. The antibodies bind to the neonatal Fc receptor and promote its degradation, therefore preventing IgG recycling without interfering with its production. They do not affect the levels of other immunoglobulin isotypes.

At the 2023 annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM), researchers presented data from an open-label extension study following the phase 3 MycarinG trial of rozanolixizumab and the ADAPT-SC+ study of efgartigimod.

In the MycarinG study, rozanolixizumab “showed both statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in multiple endpoints,” said Vera Bril, MD, during a presentation of the results.

Rozanolixizumab is approved for MG patients who are anti–acetylcholine receptor (AchR) or anti–muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) antibody positive. Efgartigimod is approved for MG patients who are AChR positive.

After completing MycarinG, patients were eligible to enroll in one of two open-label studies, one of each dose.

The new efficacy analysis focused on 110 patients who underwent two or more consecutive symptom-driven treatment cycles. A safety analysis focused on 188 patients who received at least one cycle of treatment.

“The post hoc analysis showed that the clinically meaningful improvements in the generalized myasthenia gravis symptoms were maintained over time for the cohort across rozanolixizumab cycles, while individual patients move through the consecutive treatment cycles, rozanolixizumab had an acceptable safety profile that was maintained across repeated treatments cycles. This is consistent with previous results of rozanolixizumab,” said Dr. Bril, who is a clinical investigator at University of Toronto
 

A reduction in steroid use?

During the Q&A session, George Small, MD, asked if the study had shown a reduction in steroid use among patients with MG.

As clinical associate director of neurology at Allegheny Medical Center, Pittsburgh, he has overseen the care of several hundred patients with generalized MG, as well as participated in clinical trials. “Many physicians use steroids for very quick responses in their patients. I love steroids and I hate steroids. I’ve helped save people’s lives with them, but I’ve also probably hastened their demise, unfortunately, because of the long-term side effects of the medications. Many neurologists in the community will over-utilize steroids because they don’t have access to these more expensive therapies. I look forward to both using these medications more as they become FDA approved and being an advocate for them, because it is my belief that they help decrease the use of steroids,” said Dr. Small in an interview.

Even if new medications do reduce steroid use, there remains a hurdle with insurance companies. “I’ve felt I’ve been forced to use treatments that I know may not be efficacious in the short term in order to get authorization for more expensive therapies that I use now. I’ve had patients admitted to the hospital as I’ve tried to jump through hoops that the insurance companies demanded,” said Dr. Small.
 

Clinical improvements seen

In the MycarinG study, patients received weekly injections of 7 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg rozanolixizumab, or placebo over a 6-week period. Both treatment groups had reductions in Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scores compared with placebo.

MG-ADL and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) scores were consistent across treatment cycles. The mean MG-ADL score dropped by about 4 points at week 6. At around week 10, the mean improvement declined to 2 points, and then by week 14 it increased to 3 points, where it remained consistent out to 50 weeks. A similar pattern was seen in QMG scores, with an approximate 5-point drop at 6 weeks, then about a 1.5-point improvement at 10 weeks, then a mean decrease of around 4 points that stayed stable out to 50 weeks.

Over all cycles of treatment, 89.9% of patients experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event, including 22.3% who had a serious TEAE; the study dropout rate because of TEAEs was 15.4%.

In the ADAPT-SC study, 110 patients were randomized to 10 mg/kg intravenous efgartigimod or 1,000 mg efgartigimod PH20, which is formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase to allow for rapid administration of larger volumes. After completion of ADAPT-SC, 105 patients from both groups and an additional 79 patients entered the open-label extension study with 1,000 mg efgartigimod PH20.

The study included 141 patients who were AChR-Ab positive and 38 who were AChR-Ab negative. In the first cycle, 34.6% experienced an injection-site reaction, which steadily dropped to 11.5% by the sixth cycle. After each cycle of treatment, the mean change in MG-ADL from study baseline at week 4 was between 4.1 and 4.7 points. The mean change in Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life 15-Item Questionnaire revisited from study baseline at week 4 was between 5.1 and 6.5 points. The mean change in EuroQoL 5-dimension, 5-level visual analog scale was between 12.3 and 16.0 points at week 4.

MyCarinG was funded by UCB Pharma. ADAPT-SC was funded by Argenx SE. Dr. Bril has financial relationships with Behring, Argenyx, Alexion, Immunovant, Alnylam, Akcea, Takeda, Sanofi, Ionis, Roche, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Momenta, Pfizer, CSL Behring, Grifols, Powell Mansfield, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Small is on the speaker’s bureau for Alexion.

TOPLINE:

New research suggests terminating metformin may raise the risk for dementia in older adults with type 2 diabetes, providing more evidence of metformin’s potential neuroprotective effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the association between discontinuing metformin for reasons unrelated to kidney dysfunction and dementia incidence.
• The cohort included 12,220 Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who stopped metformin early (with normal kidney function) and 29,126 routine metformin users.
• The cohort of early terminators was 46% women with an average age of 59 years at the start of metformin prescription. The cohort continuing metformin was 47% women, with a start age of 61 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adults who stopped metformin early were 21% more likely to be diagnosed with dementia during follow up (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.30), compared with routine metformin users.
• This association was largely independent of changes in A1c level and insulin usage.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “corroborate the largely consistent evidence from other observational studies showing an association between metformin use and lower dementia incidence [and] may have important implications for clinical treatment of adults with diabetes,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Scott Zimmerman, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Dementia diagnosis was obtained based on medical records. Factors such as race, ethnicity, or time on metformin were not evaluated. Information on the exact reason for stopping metformin was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging. Mr. Zimmerman owns stock in AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Abbott Laboratories. Disclosure for the other study authors can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

New research suggests terminating metformin may raise the risk for dementia in older adults with type 2 diabetes, providing more evidence of metformin’s potential neuroprotective effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the association between discontinuing metformin for reasons unrelated to kidney dysfunction and dementia incidence.
• The cohort included 12,220 Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who stopped metformin early (with normal kidney function) and 29,126 routine metformin users.
• The cohort of early terminators was 46% women with an average age of 59 years at the start of metformin prescription. The cohort continuing metformin was 47% women, with a start age of 61 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adults who stopped metformin early were 21% more likely to be diagnosed with dementia during follow up (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.30), compared with routine metformin users.
• This association was largely independent of changes in A1c level and insulin usage.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “corroborate the largely consistent evidence from other observational studies showing an association between metformin use and lower dementia incidence [and] may have important implications for clinical treatment of adults with diabetes,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Scott Zimmerman, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Dementia diagnosis was obtained based on medical records. Factors such as race, ethnicity, or time on metformin were not evaluated. Information on the exact reason for stopping metformin was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging. Mr. Zimmerman owns stock in AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Abbott Laboratories. Disclosure for the other study authors can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

New research suggests terminating metformin may raise the risk for dementia in older adults with type 2 diabetes, providing more evidence of metformin’s potential neuroprotective effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the association between discontinuing metformin for reasons unrelated to kidney dysfunction and dementia incidence.
• The cohort included 12,220 Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who stopped metformin early (with normal kidney function) and 29,126 routine metformin users.
• The cohort of early terminators was 46% women with an average age of 59 years at the start of metformin prescription. The cohort continuing metformin was 47% women, with a start age of 61 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adults who stopped metformin early were 21% more likely to be diagnosed with dementia during follow up (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.30), compared with routine metformin users.
• This association was largely independent of changes in A1c level and insulin usage.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “corroborate the largely consistent evidence from other observational studies showing an association between metformin use and lower dementia incidence [and] may have important implications for clinical treatment of adults with diabetes,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Scott Zimmerman, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Dementia diagnosis was obtained based on medical records. Factors such as race, ethnicity, or time on metformin were not evaluated. Information on the exact reason for stopping metformin was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging. Mr. Zimmerman owns stock in AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Abbott Laboratories. Disclosure for the other study authors can be found with the original article.

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

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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