MDedge Neurology

MILAN – A tool kit combining a wearable device with automated algorithms allows for the passive monitoring of disease parameters in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and may even be able to predict the course of the disease, suggests a pilot study.

Twenty patients were enrolled, only half of whom correctly completed all of the assessments and wore the included smartwatch regularly. Importantly, the data reported back for analysis was in line with expectations, and the patient feedback was positive.

The tool kit “seems feasible and usable to remotely monitor multiple domains of health status in people with multiple sclerosis,” conclude Ludovico Pedullà, PhD, Italian Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, Genoa, and colleagues.

Further analysis of the dataset, including the artificial intelligence and machine-learning algorithms, may allow the prediction of “relevant changes throughout the course of multiple sclerosis” and anticipate the need for therapeutic interventions.

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Leveraging big data to improve outcomes

The authors note that the primary aim of the pan-European ALAMEDA project is to leverage “big data” through artificial intelligence and machine learning to provide “clinically actionable information” on patients with brain disorders that “complements medical recommendations” and thus improves treatment.

For the current pilot study, the researchers developed an integrated platform to collect patient-centered data from wearables and mobile devices using digital patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), with the aim of testing the resulting tool kit’s feasibility and usability in people with MS.

Dr. Pedullà said that they wanted to have “passive monitoring” of patients over the course of their daily lives and therefore searched for the best devices and the most relevant patient reported outcomes as well as used “innovative algorithms” to analyze the data to try to predict the disease course.

To reduce dropouts and increase adherence to the tool kit, they described the project to patients with MS and asked for their feedback to determine whether what they had designed was feasible from the patient perspective, Dr. Pedullà said.

This led to some changes in the way data were collected, and the team developed a social network channel so patients would be able to ask for support and stay engaged in the study.
 

Feasible with high levels of confidence

Twenty people with relapsing-remitting MS were enrolled, of whom 14 were women. The mean age was 37.8 years, and the mean disease duration was 9.1 years. The mean Expanded Disability Status Scale was 2.2.

The participants were asked to use the tool kit for 1 year, with half reaching the 6-month milestone. Participants correctly completed 53% of the scheduled ePROs and regularly wore the smartwatch without reporting discomfort.

The team reports that the data from the tool kit “are in line with those reported in the literature.”

It showed that participants took an average of 8,415 steps per day and completed 9.8 minutes of vigorous activity and 14.5 minutes of moderate activity daily. Daily sedentary minutes were 705.1.

Patients had a mean Perceived Deficit Questionnaire score of 25.2, a Beck Anxiety Inventory score of 17.3, a score on the 12-Item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale of 37.2, and an arm function on the Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire of 47.4.

The mean Modified Fatigue Impact Scale score was 18.5, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score was 25.2. The System Usability Scale revealed “high levels of confidence” with the tool kit, the team says, as well as “very high” intention of using it in the future.

Dr. Pedullà said that the researchers now want to evaluate the feasibility of the tool kit further by analyzing the adherence and usability data and targeting it to the patients who are most likely to use it.

They also want to determine not only whether the use of wearables in this way can predict relapse in multiple sclerosis but also disease progression, particularly as the current definitions are evolving.
 

Reducing daily step count

Approached for comment, Riley M. Bove, MD, MSc, Assistant Professor, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, said that the study is “very interesting and in line with what has been previously published.”

She pointed to a recent study that she co-authored, in which remote monitoring via a continuous step counter revealed that a decreasing average daily step count was associated with the worsening of standard ambulatory measures.

“There are nice benefits of an integrated platform” such as what was used in the current study, Dr. Bove noted, adding that it is “even better if it can also send the data to clinicians.”

The ALAMEDA project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

MILAN – A tool kit combining a wearable device with automated algorithms allows for the passive monitoring of disease parameters in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and may even be able to predict the course of the disease, suggests a pilot study.

Twenty patients were enrolled, only half of whom correctly completed all of the assessments and wore the included smartwatch regularly. Importantly, the data reported back for analysis was in line with expectations, and the patient feedback was positive.

The tool kit “seems feasible and usable to remotely monitor multiple domains of health status in people with multiple sclerosis,” conclude Ludovico Pedullà, PhD, Italian Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, Genoa, and colleagues.

Further analysis of the dataset, including the artificial intelligence and machine-learning algorithms, may allow the prediction of “relevant changes throughout the course of multiple sclerosis” and anticipate the need for therapeutic interventions.

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Leveraging big data to improve outcomes

The authors note that the primary aim of the pan-European ALAMEDA project is to leverage “big data” through artificial intelligence and machine learning to provide “clinically actionable information” on patients with brain disorders that “complements medical recommendations” and thus improves treatment.

For the current pilot study, the researchers developed an integrated platform to collect patient-centered data from wearables and mobile devices using digital patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), with the aim of testing the resulting tool kit’s feasibility and usability in people with MS.

Dr. Pedullà said that they wanted to have “passive monitoring” of patients over the course of their daily lives and therefore searched for the best devices and the most relevant patient reported outcomes as well as used “innovative algorithms” to analyze the data to try to predict the disease course.

To reduce dropouts and increase adherence to the tool kit, they described the project to patients with MS and asked for their feedback to determine whether what they had designed was feasible from the patient perspective, Dr. Pedullà said.

This led to some changes in the way data were collected, and the team developed a social network channel so patients would be able to ask for support and stay engaged in the study.
 

Feasible with high levels of confidence

Twenty people with relapsing-remitting MS were enrolled, of whom 14 were women. The mean age was 37.8 years, and the mean disease duration was 9.1 years. The mean Expanded Disability Status Scale was 2.2.

The participants were asked to use the tool kit for 1 year, with half reaching the 6-month milestone. Participants correctly completed 53% of the scheduled ePROs and regularly wore the smartwatch without reporting discomfort.

The team reports that the data from the tool kit “are in line with those reported in the literature.”

It showed that participants took an average of 8,415 steps per day and completed 9.8 minutes of vigorous activity and 14.5 minutes of moderate activity daily. Daily sedentary minutes were 705.1.

Patients had a mean Perceived Deficit Questionnaire score of 25.2, a Beck Anxiety Inventory score of 17.3, a score on the 12-Item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale of 37.2, and an arm function on the Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire of 47.4.

The mean Modified Fatigue Impact Scale score was 18.5, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score was 25.2. The System Usability Scale revealed “high levels of confidence” with the tool kit, the team says, as well as “very high” intention of using it in the future.

Dr. Pedullà said that the researchers now want to evaluate the feasibility of the tool kit further by analyzing the adherence and usability data and targeting it to the patients who are most likely to use it.

They also want to determine not only whether the use of wearables in this way can predict relapse in multiple sclerosis but also disease progression, particularly as the current definitions are evolving.
 

Reducing daily step count

Approached for comment, Riley M. Bove, MD, MSc, Assistant Professor, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, said that the study is “very interesting and in line with what has been previously published.”

She pointed to a recent study that she co-authored, in which remote monitoring via a continuous step counter revealed that a decreasing average daily step count was associated with the worsening of standard ambulatory measures.

“There are nice benefits of an integrated platform” such as what was used in the current study, Dr. Bove noted, adding that it is “even better if it can also send the data to clinicians.”

The ALAMEDA project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

MILAN – A tool kit combining a wearable device with automated algorithms allows for the passive monitoring of disease parameters in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and may even be able to predict the course of the disease, suggests a pilot study.

Twenty patients were enrolled, only half of whom correctly completed all of the assessments and wore the included smartwatch regularly. Importantly, the data reported back for analysis was in line with expectations, and the patient feedback was positive.

The tool kit “seems feasible and usable to remotely monitor multiple domains of health status in people with multiple sclerosis,” conclude Ludovico Pedullà, PhD, Italian Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, Genoa, and colleagues.

Further analysis of the dataset, including the artificial intelligence and machine-learning algorithms, may allow the prediction of “relevant changes throughout the course of multiple sclerosis” and anticipate the need for therapeutic interventions.

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Leveraging big data to improve outcomes

The authors note that the primary aim of the pan-European ALAMEDA project is to leverage “big data” through artificial intelligence and machine learning to provide “clinically actionable information” on patients with brain disorders that “complements medical recommendations” and thus improves treatment.

For the current pilot study, the researchers developed an integrated platform to collect patient-centered data from wearables and mobile devices using digital patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), with the aim of testing the resulting tool kit’s feasibility and usability in people with MS.

Dr. Pedullà said that they wanted to have “passive monitoring” of patients over the course of their daily lives and therefore searched for the best devices and the most relevant patient reported outcomes as well as used “innovative algorithms” to analyze the data to try to predict the disease course.

To reduce dropouts and increase adherence to the tool kit, they described the project to patients with MS and asked for their feedback to determine whether what they had designed was feasible from the patient perspective, Dr. Pedullà said.

This led to some changes in the way data were collected, and the team developed a social network channel so patients would be able to ask for support and stay engaged in the study.
 

Feasible with high levels of confidence

Twenty people with relapsing-remitting MS were enrolled, of whom 14 were women. The mean age was 37.8 years, and the mean disease duration was 9.1 years. The mean Expanded Disability Status Scale was 2.2.

The participants were asked to use the tool kit for 1 year, with half reaching the 6-month milestone. Participants correctly completed 53% of the scheduled ePROs and regularly wore the smartwatch without reporting discomfort.

The team reports that the data from the tool kit “are in line with those reported in the literature.”

It showed that participants took an average of 8,415 steps per day and completed 9.8 minutes of vigorous activity and 14.5 minutes of moderate activity daily. Daily sedentary minutes were 705.1.

Patients had a mean Perceived Deficit Questionnaire score of 25.2, a Beck Anxiety Inventory score of 17.3, a score on the 12-Item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale of 37.2, and an arm function on the Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire of 47.4.

The mean Modified Fatigue Impact Scale score was 18.5, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score was 25.2. The System Usability Scale revealed “high levels of confidence” with the tool kit, the team says, as well as “very high” intention of using it in the future.

Dr. Pedullà said that the researchers now want to evaluate the feasibility of the tool kit further by analyzing the adherence and usability data and targeting it to the patients who are most likely to use it.

They also want to determine not only whether the use of wearables in this way can predict relapse in multiple sclerosis but also disease progression, particularly as the current definitions are evolving.
 

Reducing daily step count

Approached for comment, Riley M. Bove, MD, MSc, Assistant Professor, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, said that the study is “very interesting and in line with what has been previously published.”

She pointed to a recent study that she co-authored, in which remote monitoring via a continuous step counter revealed that a decreasing average daily step count was associated with the worsening of standard ambulatory measures.

“There are nice benefits of an integrated platform” such as what was used in the current study, Dr. Bove noted, adding that it is “even better if it can also send the data to clinicians.”

The ALAMEDA project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

The enteric nervous system (ENS), which is regarded as our second brain, is the part of the autonomic nervous system that controls the digestive tract. Housed along the entire length of the digestive tract, it is made up of more than 100 million neurons. It plays a central role in controlling the regulation of gastrointestinal motility, absorption of nutrients, and control of the intestinal barrier that protects the body from external pathogens.

Braak’s hypothesis suggests that the digestive tract could be the starting point for Parkinson’s disease. The fact that nearly all patients with Parkinson’s disease experience digestive problems and have neuropathological lesions in intrinsic and extrinsic innervation of the gastrointestinal tract suggests that Parkinson’s disease also has a gastrointestinal component.

Besides the ascending pathway formulated by Braak, a descending etiology in which gastrointestinal symptoms are present in early stages when neurological signposts have not yet been noticed is supported by evidence from trials. These gastrointestinal symptoms then represent a risk factor. Links have also been described between a history of gastrointestinal symptoms and Alzheimer’s disease and cerebrovascular diseases (CVD), thus justifying studies on a larger scale.
 

Large combined study

The authors have conducted a combined case-control and cohort study using TriNetX, a national network of medical records based in the United States. They identified 24,624 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease in the case-control analysis and compared them with control subjects without neurological disease. They also identified subjects with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, to study previous gastrointestinal signs. Secondly, 18 cohorts with each exposure (various gastrointestinal symptoms, appendectomy, vagotomy) were compared with their negative controls (NC) for the development of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or CVD in 5 years.

Gastroparesis, dysphagia, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) without diarrhea or constipation were shown to have specific associations with Parkinson’s disease (vs. NC, Alzheimer’s disease, and CVD) in both case-controls (odds ratios all P < .0001) and cohort analyses (relative risks all P < .05). While functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not specific to Parkinson’s disease, IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed specificity to Parkinson’s disease in the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort (RR, 1.84) analyses. Appendectomy reduced the risk of Parkinson’s disease in the cohort study (RR, 0.48). Neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with Parkinson’s disease.
 

A ‘second brain’

This broad study attempted to explore the gut-brain axis by looking for associations between neurological diagnoses and prior gastrointestinal symptoms and later development of Parkinson’s disease. After adjustment to account for multiple comparisons and acknowledgment of the initial risk in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, only dysphagia, gastroparesis, IBS without diarrhea, and isolated constipation were significantly and specifically associated with Parkinson’s disease.

Numerous literature reviews mention that ENS lesions are responsible for gastrointestinal disorders observed in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Tests on gastrointestinal autopsy and biopsy specimens have established that alpha synuclein clusters, which are morphologically similar to Lewy bodies in the CNS, are seen in the vagus nerve and in the ENS in most subjects with Parkinson’s disease. However, these studies have not shown any loss of neurons in the ENS in Parkinson’s disease, and the presence of alpha synuclein deposits in the ENS is not sufficient in itself to explain these gastrointestinal disorders.

It therefore remains to be determined whether vagal nerve damage alone can explain gastrointestinal disorders or whether dysfunction of enteric neurons without neuronal loss is occurring. So, damage to the ENS from alpha synuclein deposits would be early and would precede damage to the CNS, thus affording evidence in support of Braak’s hypothesis, which relies on autopsy data that does not allow for longitudinal monitoring in a single individual.

Appendectomy appeared to be protective, leading to additional speculation about its role in the pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease. Additional mechanistic studies are therefore needed to establish causality and confirm the gut-brain axis or the role of dysbiosis and of intestinal permeability problems.

In conclusion, this large, first-of-its-kind multicenter study conducted on a national scale shows that early gastrointestinal symptoms (dysphagia, gastroparesis, constipation, and IBS without diarrhea) are associated with an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, as is suggested by Braak’s hypothesis. Subject to future longitudinal mechanistic studies, early detection of these gastrointestinal disorders could aid in identifying patients at risk of Parkinson’s, and it could then be assumed that disease-modifying treatments could, at this early stage, halt progression of the disease linked to toxic clusters of alpha synuclein.

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network.

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

The enteric nervous system (ENS), which is regarded as our second brain, is the part of the autonomic nervous system that controls the digestive tract. Housed along the entire length of the digestive tract, it is made up of more than 100 million neurons. It plays a central role in controlling the regulation of gastrointestinal motility, absorption of nutrients, and control of the intestinal barrier that protects the body from external pathogens.

Braak’s hypothesis suggests that the digestive tract could be the starting point for Parkinson’s disease. The fact that nearly all patients with Parkinson’s disease experience digestive problems and have neuropathological lesions in intrinsic and extrinsic innervation of the gastrointestinal tract suggests that Parkinson’s disease also has a gastrointestinal component.

Besides the ascending pathway formulated by Braak, a descending etiology in which gastrointestinal symptoms are present in early stages when neurological signposts have not yet been noticed is supported by evidence from trials. These gastrointestinal symptoms then represent a risk factor. Links have also been described between a history of gastrointestinal symptoms and Alzheimer’s disease and cerebrovascular diseases (CVD), thus justifying studies on a larger scale.
 

Large combined study

The authors have conducted a combined case-control and cohort study using TriNetX, a national network of medical records based in the United States. They identified 24,624 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease in the case-control analysis and compared them with control subjects without neurological disease. They also identified subjects with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, to study previous gastrointestinal signs. Secondly, 18 cohorts with each exposure (various gastrointestinal symptoms, appendectomy, vagotomy) were compared with their negative controls (NC) for the development of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or CVD in 5 years.

Gastroparesis, dysphagia, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) without diarrhea or constipation were shown to have specific associations with Parkinson’s disease (vs. NC, Alzheimer’s disease, and CVD) in both case-controls (odds ratios all P < .0001) and cohort analyses (relative risks all P < .05). While functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not specific to Parkinson’s disease, IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed specificity to Parkinson’s disease in the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort (RR, 1.84) analyses. Appendectomy reduced the risk of Parkinson’s disease in the cohort study (RR, 0.48). Neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with Parkinson’s disease.
 

A ‘second brain’

This broad study attempted to explore the gut-brain axis by looking for associations between neurological diagnoses and prior gastrointestinal symptoms and later development of Parkinson’s disease. After adjustment to account for multiple comparisons and acknowledgment of the initial risk in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, only dysphagia, gastroparesis, IBS without diarrhea, and isolated constipation were significantly and specifically associated with Parkinson’s disease.

Numerous literature reviews mention that ENS lesions are responsible for gastrointestinal disorders observed in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Tests on gastrointestinal autopsy and biopsy specimens have established that alpha synuclein clusters, which are morphologically similar to Lewy bodies in the CNS, are seen in the vagus nerve and in the ENS in most subjects with Parkinson’s disease. However, these studies have not shown any loss of neurons in the ENS in Parkinson’s disease, and the presence of alpha synuclein deposits in the ENS is not sufficient in itself to explain these gastrointestinal disorders.

It therefore remains to be determined whether vagal nerve damage alone can explain gastrointestinal disorders or whether dysfunction of enteric neurons without neuronal loss is occurring. So, damage to the ENS from alpha synuclein deposits would be early and would precede damage to the CNS, thus affording evidence in support of Braak’s hypothesis, which relies on autopsy data that does not allow for longitudinal monitoring in a single individual.

Appendectomy appeared to be protective, leading to additional speculation about its role in the pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease. Additional mechanistic studies are therefore needed to establish causality and confirm the gut-brain axis or the role of dysbiosis and of intestinal permeability problems.

In conclusion, this large, first-of-its-kind multicenter study conducted on a national scale shows that early gastrointestinal symptoms (dysphagia, gastroparesis, constipation, and IBS without diarrhea) are associated with an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, as is suggested by Braak’s hypothesis. Subject to future longitudinal mechanistic studies, early detection of these gastrointestinal disorders could aid in identifying patients at risk of Parkinson’s, and it could then be assumed that disease-modifying treatments could, at this early stage, halt progression of the disease linked to toxic clusters of alpha synuclein.

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network.

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

The enteric nervous system (ENS), which is regarded as our second brain, is the part of the autonomic nervous system that controls the digestive tract. Housed along the entire length of the digestive tract, it is made up of more than 100 million neurons. It plays a central role in controlling the regulation of gastrointestinal motility, absorption of nutrients, and control of the intestinal barrier that protects the body from external pathogens.

Braak’s hypothesis suggests that the digestive tract could be the starting point for Parkinson’s disease. The fact that nearly all patients with Parkinson’s disease experience digestive problems and have neuropathological lesions in intrinsic and extrinsic innervation of the gastrointestinal tract suggests that Parkinson’s disease also has a gastrointestinal component.

Besides the ascending pathway formulated by Braak, a descending etiology in which gastrointestinal symptoms are present in early stages when neurological signposts have not yet been noticed is supported by evidence from trials. These gastrointestinal symptoms then represent a risk factor. Links have also been described between a history of gastrointestinal symptoms and Alzheimer’s disease and cerebrovascular diseases (CVD), thus justifying studies on a larger scale.
 

Large combined study

The authors have conducted a combined case-control and cohort study using TriNetX, a national network of medical records based in the United States. They identified 24,624 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease in the case-control analysis and compared them with control subjects without neurological disease. They also identified subjects with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, to study previous gastrointestinal signs. Secondly, 18 cohorts with each exposure (various gastrointestinal symptoms, appendectomy, vagotomy) were compared with their negative controls (NC) for the development of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or CVD in 5 years.

Gastroparesis, dysphagia, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) without diarrhea or constipation were shown to have specific associations with Parkinson’s disease (vs. NC, Alzheimer’s disease, and CVD) in both case-controls (odds ratios all P < .0001) and cohort analyses (relative risks all P < .05). While functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not specific to Parkinson’s disease, IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed specificity to Parkinson’s disease in the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort (RR, 1.84) analyses. Appendectomy reduced the risk of Parkinson’s disease in the cohort study (RR, 0.48). Neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with Parkinson’s disease.
 

A ‘second brain’

This broad study attempted to explore the gut-brain axis by looking for associations between neurological diagnoses and prior gastrointestinal symptoms and later development of Parkinson’s disease. After adjustment to account for multiple comparisons and acknowledgment of the initial risk in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, only dysphagia, gastroparesis, IBS without diarrhea, and isolated constipation were significantly and specifically associated with Parkinson’s disease.

Numerous literature reviews mention that ENS lesions are responsible for gastrointestinal disorders observed in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Tests on gastrointestinal autopsy and biopsy specimens have established that alpha synuclein clusters, which are morphologically similar to Lewy bodies in the CNS, are seen in the vagus nerve and in the ENS in most subjects with Parkinson’s disease. However, these studies have not shown any loss of neurons in the ENS in Parkinson’s disease, and the presence of alpha synuclein deposits in the ENS is not sufficient in itself to explain these gastrointestinal disorders.

It therefore remains to be determined whether vagal nerve damage alone can explain gastrointestinal disorders or whether dysfunction of enteric neurons without neuronal loss is occurring. So, damage to the ENS from alpha synuclein deposits would be early and would precede damage to the CNS, thus affording evidence in support of Braak’s hypothesis, which relies on autopsy data that does not allow for longitudinal monitoring in a single individual.

Appendectomy appeared to be protective, leading to additional speculation about its role in the pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease. Additional mechanistic studies are therefore needed to establish causality and confirm the gut-brain axis or the role of dysbiosis and of intestinal permeability problems.

In conclusion, this large, first-of-its-kind multicenter study conducted on a national scale shows that early gastrointestinal symptoms (dysphagia, gastroparesis, constipation, and IBS without diarrhea) are associated with an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, as is suggested by Braak’s hypothesis. Subject to future longitudinal mechanistic studies, early detection of these gastrointestinal disorders could aid in identifying patients at risk of Parkinson’s, and it could then be assumed that disease-modifying treatments could, at this early stage, halt progression of the disease linked to toxic clusters of alpha synuclein.

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network.

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

Playing chess or other board games slows cognitive decline and improves quality of life in older patients, results of a new systematic review suggest.
 

“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).

After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.

The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.

Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
 

Which games are best?

Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).

Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).

In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.

Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.

The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.

He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.

Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.

In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
 

Social and cognitive value

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.

Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.

There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.

“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”

But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.

“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”

Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Playing chess or other board games slows cognitive decline and improves quality of life in older patients, results of a new systematic review suggest.
 

“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).

After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.

The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.

Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
 

Which games are best?

Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).

Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).

In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.

Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.

The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.

He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.

Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.

In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
 

Social and cognitive value

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.

Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.

There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.

“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”

But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.

“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”

Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Playing chess or other board games slows cognitive decline and improves quality of life in older patients, results of a new systematic review suggest.
 

“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).

After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.

The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.

Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
 

Which games are best?

Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).

Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).

In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.

Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.

The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.

He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.

Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.

In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
 

Social and cognitive value

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.

Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.

There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.

“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”

But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.

“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”

Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – An analysis of medical records of patients diagnosed with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMO) found that many may be misdiagnosed: 47% had diagnoses listed for both NMO and multiple sclerosis (MS), a similar disease that requires different treatment, according to a poster presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

“There is a lack of education in differentiating between MS and NMO even in the medical community, which may result in a high misdiagnosis rate,” said study lead author Ka-Ho Wong, MBA, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an interview.

“NMO was recognized in the late 1800s and was historically thought to be a variant of MS until 1999,” said Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, in an interview.

“They are both relapsing inflammatory disorders of the central nervous system with similarities in symptoms of weakness, numbness, mobility problem, vision defects, pain and fatigue,” said Dr. Levy, who did not take part in the new study. “A blood test for NMO was developed in 2004 and improved over time to the point that it can now reliably distinguish NMO from MS.”

As for therapy, “recent research has confirmed the two conditions are immunologically different and respond to different treatment,” Dr. Levy said. “The treatments developed for MS, especially from the 1990s, are harmful in NMO so it is important to make the diagnosis correctly.”

He added that “we do not recognize overlap between NMO or MS – it’s one or the other.”

Exploring the reasons for misdiagnosis

Mr. Wong, the present study’s lead author, said he and a research team launched the new study to better understand who gets misdiagnosed. “We know that almost 50% of the individuals get misdiagnosed at some point. However, what we don’t know yet is if the influencing factors are social determinants of health or if there are other causes.”

For the study, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a health research network with access to medical records from 61 U.S. health care organizations. providing access to electronic medical records that includes sixty-one health care organizations (HCOs) in the United States.

ICD-10 coding statistics from 2008 to 2022 identified 7,657 patients with diagnoses for NMO. Of those, 4,040 (53%) only had diagnoses for NMO, and the rest (3,617, 47%) had diagnoses for both NMO and MS.

The researchers focused on 1,265 patients who had been coded for both diagnoses and had at least three clinical visits. They determined that a patient was misdiagnosed when they had three consecutive diagnoses of the same type. “For example, if they had MS but got misdiagnosed as NMO, once they are confirmed as MS they must have three or more consecutive diagnosis of MS to be considered as misdiagnosed,” Mr. Wong said.

Of the 1,265 subjects, the researchers determined that 308 (24%) had NMO but had been misdiagnosed as having MS, 189 (15%) had MS but were misdiagnosed as having NMO, and 768 (61%) were interchangeably diagnosed with the two conditions over time.

Among these three groups, 70.8%, 73.1%, and 78.4% were female, respectively; and 59.4%, 52.9%, and 53.0% were White, respectively. The percentages of Black patients were 17.2%, 24.3%, and 28.9%, respectively. Information about statistical significance was not provided in the poster.

Dr. Levy said he would “expect most NMO patients to initially be diagnosed with MS. It’s unusual to start with a diagnosis of NMO and then figure out it’s MS.”

As for the larger number of people with interchangeable diagnoses, Dr. Levy said that likely “reflects the messiness of billing codes.” For his part, Mr. Wong said there could be multiple causes for the interchangeable diagnoses: lack of disease knowledge, miscoding, lack of Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for NMO at the time, and potentially other factors.

What does it all mean?

As for the study’s significance, Mr. Wong said a full workup should be performed before diagnosis, “and a neurologist should never prescribe disease-modifying therapies prior to a confirmation of diagnosis.”

Indeed, some disease-modifying therapies for MS are inappropriate for patients with NMO, Dr. Levy said. “The older medications, including beta-interferons, are among the most harmful to NMO patients. But they are not commonly used as first line for MS as they used to be. In contrast, B cell–depleting medications like ocrelizumab may be helpful in NMO.” 

In regards to diagnosis, Dr. Levy noted that the NMO aquaporin-4 (AQP4) antibody test is “extremely specific and reliable.”

“A positive test result in the context of a clinical presentation of central nervous system inflammation allows for the diagnosis of NMO,” he said. “A negative test result is more complicated and may require some expertise to sort out after a careful review of the history, neurological exam, MRI features, central nervous system testing and other blood test results.”

The study was funded by the Sumaira Foundation. The authors did not provide information about relevant disclosures. Dr. Levy reports personal compensation for advisory board activities from Roche, Genentech, Chugai, Horizon, Alexion and Mitsubishi and grant support from Genentech, Horizon, Alexion, Sanofi, and UCB.

MILAN – An analysis of medical records of patients diagnosed with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMO) found that many may be misdiagnosed: 47% had diagnoses listed for both NMO and multiple sclerosis (MS), a similar disease that requires different treatment, according to a poster presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

“There is a lack of education in differentiating between MS and NMO even in the medical community, which may result in a high misdiagnosis rate,” said study lead author Ka-Ho Wong, MBA, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an interview.

“NMO was recognized in the late 1800s and was historically thought to be a variant of MS until 1999,” said Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, in an interview.

“They are both relapsing inflammatory disorders of the central nervous system with similarities in symptoms of weakness, numbness, mobility problem, vision defects, pain and fatigue,” said Dr. Levy, who did not take part in the new study. “A blood test for NMO was developed in 2004 and improved over time to the point that it can now reliably distinguish NMO from MS.”

As for therapy, “recent research has confirmed the two conditions are immunologically different and respond to different treatment,” Dr. Levy said. “The treatments developed for MS, especially from the 1990s, are harmful in NMO so it is important to make the diagnosis correctly.”

He added that “we do not recognize overlap between NMO or MS – it’s one or the other.”

Exploring the reasons for misdiagnosis

Mr. Wong, the present study’s lead author, said he and a research team launched the new study to better understand who gets misdiagnosed. “We know that almost 50% of the individuals get misdiagnosed at some point. However, what we don’t know yet is if the influencing factors are social determinants of health or if there are other causes.”

For the study, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a health research network with access to medical records from 61 U.S. health care organizations. providing access to electronic medical records that includes sixty-one health care organizations (HCOs) in the United States.

ICD-10 coding statistics from 2008 to 2022 identified 7,657 patients with diagnoses for NMO. Of those, 4,040 (53%) only had diagnoses for NMO, and the rest (3,617, 47%) had diagnoses for both NMO and MS.

The researchers focused on 1,265 patients who had been coded for both diagnoses and had at least three clinical visits. They determined that a patient was misdiagnosed when they had three consecutive diagnoses of the same type. “For example, if they had MS but got misdiagnosed as NMO, once they are confirmed as MS they must have three or more consecutive diagnosis of MS to be considered as misdiagnosed,” Mr. Wong said.

Of the 1,265 subjects, the researchers determined that 308 (24%) had NMO but had been misdiagnosed as having MS, 189 (15%) had MS but were misdiagnosed as having NMO, and 768 (61%) were interchangeably diagnosed with the two conditions over time.

Among these three groups, 70.8%, 73.1%, and 78.4% were female, respectively; and 59.4%, 52.9%, and 53.0% were White, respectively. The percentages of Black patients were 17.2%, 24.3%, and 28.9%, respectively. Information about statistical significance was not provided in the poster.

Dr. Levy said he would “expect most NMO patients to initially be diagnosed with MS. It’s unusual to start with a diagnosis of NMO and then figure out it’s MS.”

As for the larger number of people with interchangeable diagnoses, Dr. Levy said that likely “reflects the messiness of billing codes.” For his part, Mr. Wong said there could be multiple causes for the interchangeable diagnoses: lack of disease knowledge, miscoding, lack of Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for NMO at the time, and potentially other factors.

What does it all mean?

As for the study’s significance, Mr. Wong said a full workup should be performed before diagnosis, “and a neurologist should never prescribe disease-modifying therapies prior to a confirmation of diagnosis.”

Indeed, some disease-modifying therapies for MS are inappropriate for patients with NMO, Dr. Levy said. “The older medications, including beta-interferons, are among the most harmful to NMO patients. But they are not commonly used as first line for MS as they used to be. In contrast, B cell–depleting medications like ocrelizumab may be helpful in NMO.” 

In regards to diagnosis, Dr. Levy noted that the NMO aquaporin-4 (AQP4) antibody test is “extremely specific and reliable.”

“A positive test result in the context of a clinical presentation of central nervous system inflammation allows for the diagnosis of NMO,” he said. “A negative test result is more complicated and may require some expertise to sort out after a careful review of the history, neurological exam, MRI features, central nervous system testing and other blood test results.”

The study was funded by the Sumaira Foundation. The authors did not provide information about relevant disclosures. Dr. Levy reports personal compensation for advisory board activities from Roche, Genentech, Chugai, Horizon, Alexion and Mitsubishi and grant support from Genentech, Horizon, Alexion, Sanofi, and UCB.

MILAN – An analysis of medical records of patients diagnosed with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMO) found that many may be misdiagnosed: 47% had diagnoses listed for both NMO and multiple sclerosis (MS), a similar disease that requires different treatment, according to a poster presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

“There is a lack of education in differentiating between MS and NMO even in the medical community, which may result in a high misdiagnosis rate,” said study lead author Ka-Ho Wong, MBA, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an interview.

“NMO was recognized in the late 1800s and was historically thought to be a variant of MS until 1999,” said Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, in an interview.

“They are both relapsing inflammatory disorders of the central nervous system with similarities in symptoms of weakness, numbness, mobility problem, vision defects, pain and fatigue,” said Dr. Levy, who did not take part in the new study. “A blood test for NMO was developed in 2004 and improved over time to the point that it can now reliably distinguish NMO from MS.”

As for therapy, “recent research has confirmed the two conditions are immunologically different and respond to different treatment,” Dr. Levy said. “The treatments developed for MS, especially from the 1990s, are harmful in NMO so it is important to make the diagnosis correctly.”

He added that “we do not recognize overlap between NMO or MS – it’s one or the other.”

Exploring the reasons for misdiagnosis

Mr. Wong, the present study’s lead author, said he and a research team launched the new study to better understand who gets misdiagnosed. “We know that almost 50% of the individuals get misdiagnosed at some point. However, what we don’t know yet is if the influencing factors are social determinants of health or if there are other causes.”

For the study, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a health research network with access to medical records from 61 U.S. health care organizations. providing access to electronic medical records that includes sixty-one health care organizations (HCOs) in the United States.

ICD-10 coding statistics from 2008 to 2022 identified 7,657 patients with diagnoses for NMO. Of those, 4,040 (53%) only had diagnoses for NMO, and the rest (3,617, 47%) had diagnoses for both NMO and MS.

The researchers focused on 1,265 patients who had been coded for both diagnoses and had at least three clinical visits. They determined that a patient was misdiagnosed when they had three consecutive diagnoses of the same type. “For example, if they had MS but got misdiagnosed as NMO, once they are confirmed as MS they must have three or more consecutive diagnosis of MS to be considered as misdiagnosed,” Mr. Wong said.

Of the 1,265 subjects, the researchers determined that 308 (24%) had NMO but had been misdiagnosed as having MS, 189 (15%) had MS but were misdiagnosed as having NMO, and 768 (61%) were interchangeably diagnosed with the two conditions over time.

Among these three groups, 70.8%, 73.1%, and 78.4% were female, respectively; and 59.4%, 52.9%, and 53.0% were White, respectively. The percentages of Black patients were 17.2%, 24.3%, and 28.9%, respectively. Information about statistical significance was not provided in the poster.

Dr. Levy said he would “expect most NMO patients to initially be diagnosed with MS. It’s unusual to start with a diagnosis of NMO and then figure out it’s MS.”

As for the larger number of people with interchangeable diagnoses, Dr. Levy said that likely “reflects the messiness of billing codes.” For his part, Mr. Wong said there could be multiple causes for the interchangeable diagnoses: lack of disease knowledge, miscoding, lack of Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for NMO at the time, and potentially other factors.

What does it all mean?

As for the study’s significance, Mr. Wong said a full workup should be performed before diagnosis, “and a neurologist should never prescribe disease-modifying therapies prior to a confirmation of diagnosis.”

Indeed, some disease-modifying therapies for MS are inappropriate for patients with NMO, Dr. Levy said. “The older medications, including beta-interferons, are among the most harmful to NMO patients. But they are not commonly used as first line for MS as they used to be. In contrast, B cell–depleting medications like ocrelizumab may be helpful in NMO.” 

In regards to diagnosis, Dr. Levy noted that the NMO aquaporin-4 (AQP4) antibody test is “extremely specific and reliable.”

“A positive test result in the context of a clinical presentation of central nervous system inflammation allows for the diagnosis of NMO,” he said. “A negative test result is more complicated and may require some expertise to sort out after a careful review of the history, neurological exam, MRI features, central nervous system testing and other blood test results.”

The study was funded by the Sumaira Foundation. The authors did not provide information about relevant disclosures. Dr. Levy reports personal compensation for advisory board activities from Roche, Genentech, Chugai, Horizon, Alexion and Mitsubishi and grant support from Genentech, Horizon, Alexion, Sanofi, and UCB.

MILAN – Two physicians agreed that there’s no doubt that Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is deeply linked to multiple sclerosis (MS), but they diverged over the extent of its role in a joint presentation at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

Armed with the findings of his own landmark 2022 study into EBV and MS, Harvard Medical School, Boston, professor of medicine Alberto Ascherio, MD, DrPH, argued that they’re tightly connected. But rheumatologist William H. Robinson, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said that while he also believes EBV plays a significant role in MS, “there’s likely a role for a second hit” – some other factor. “Why are 95% of us EBV-infected, but only a small subset ultimately develop MS or ... other autoimmune diseases?”

As a 2023 review noted, researchers have puzzled over the connection between EBV and MS since the early 1980s. “Until that point, EBV was primarily viewed as a cancer-causing agent, but the culmination of evidence now shows that EBV has a pivotal role in development of MS.” But it’s not clear how EBV – which strikes more than an estimated 95% of humans and causes mononucleosis – manages to trigger MS.
 

A rare complication of EBV infection

In the 2022 study, Dr. Ascherio aimed to understand exactly how deeply EBV and MS are connected by analyzing serum data gathered from more than 10 million active-duty members of the U.S. military. Of those, 955 were diagnosed with MS.

The researchers focused on 801 subjects with MS and matched them to 1,566 controls. Only 1 of the 801 subjects with MS had a negative EBV test prior to diagnosis, a fact that researchers believe could be due to a factor such as a failure to seroconvert during infection. “At baseline, 35 MS cases and 107 controls were EBV-negative,” the study reported. “All but one of these 35 EBV-negative MS cases became infected with EBV during the follow-up.”

Overall, subjects who were positive for EBV were 32.4 times to develop MS than those who weren’t (95% confidence interval, 4.3-245.3; P < 0.001).

Is it possible that immune dysregulation from MS precedes EBV infection? The researchers analyzed viruses in 30 subjects with MS – before and after MS onset – and in 30 controls. The findings suggested that EBV was the major player, Dr. Ascherio said.

Researchers also focused on cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, which is closely related to EBV and to the chicken pox virus. “CMV seroconversion is not associated with MS, and positivity for CMV at baseline was associated with a modestly lower risk of MS,” Dr. Ascherio said.

In the big picture, “this data establishes beyond reasonable doubt that MS is a rare complication of EBV infection,” Dr. Ascherio said. “The main question now is whether the virus triggers an immune process that then is self-maintained, or whether the presence of the infection keeps feeding the immune process.”
 

Inadequate evidence for causation

In his presentation, Dr. Robinson asked: “Does EBV cause MS? Really? All of MS? In humans [with MS], yes, we found monoclonal antibodies expressed by the B cells that bound to EBV. But we also found spinal fluid B cells and coding antibodies that bound to multiple other viruses, including rubella, VZV [varicella-zoster virus/chickenpox], CMV, and HSV [herpes simplex virus]. And there’s even a measles reactive antibody there.”

And there’s evidence that human herpes virus type 6 (HHV-6) and HHV-6A could be linked to MS: “Maybe HHV-6 or HHV-6A is the cause of MS in a subset of patients,” Dr. Robinson said. Research suggests that pox viruses could be another possible cause, he said.

He added: “I’m a rheumatologist, and I see patients in the clinic and in the hospital who have lupus, a disease highly associated with EBV infection. But they definitely do not have MS, nor do they have RA [rheumatoid arthritis], and likewise your MS patients don’t have lupus. What’s up with all these diseases potentially being linked to EBV?”
 

A missing piece of the puzzle?

In a discussion period, Dr. Ascherio responded to Dr. Robinson by saying he’s waiting to see evidence that patients with the other diseases linked to EBV don’t develop them if they’re EBV-negative. Dr. Ascherio added that it’s possible that there are different strains of EBV, and some may be more likely to cause MS.

What does this all mean for MS prevention? In a commentary published with Dr. Ascherio’s 2022 study, Dr. Robinson and a coauthor asked: “Would a vaccine against EBV protect against MS? Can the B cells that dwell in the CSF be killed or inactivated with therapeutics? Would antivirals that target EBV provide effective therapy, especially when given early in the course of disease? Now that the initial trigger for MS has been identified, perhaps MS could be eradicated.”

Dr. Ascherio discloses speaker/consultant relationships with Prada Foundation, WebMD, Biogen, Moderna, Merck, Roche, and GSK. Dr. Robinson discloses unspecified relationships with Altreca and Flatiron Bio, and he is a coinventor on a patent application filed by Stanford University that includes antibodies to EBV.
 

MILAN – Two physicians agreed that there’s no doubt that Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is deeply linked to multiple sclerosis (MS), but they diverged over the extent of its role in a joint presentation at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

Armed with the findings of his own landmark 2022 study into EBV and MS, Harvard Medical School, Boston, professor of medicine Alberto Ascherio, MD, DrPH, argued that they’re tightly connected. But rheumatologist William H. Robinson, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said that while he also believes EBV plays a significant role in MS, “there’s likely a role for a second hit” – some other factor. “Why are 95% of us EBV-infected, but only a small subset ultimately develop MS or ... other autoimmune diseases?”

As a 2023 review noted, researchers have puzzled over the connection between EBV and MS since the early 1980s. “Until that point, EBV was primarily viewed as a cancer-causing agent, but the culmination of evidence now shows that EBV has a pivotal role in development of MS.” But it’s not clear how EBV – which strikes more than an estimated 95% of humans and causes mononucleosis – manages to trigger MS.
 

A rare complication of EBV infection

In the 2022 study, Dr. Ascherio aimed to understand exactly how deeply EBV and MS are connected by analyzing serum data gathered from more than 10 million active-duty members of the U.S. military. Of those, 955 were diagnosed with MS.

The researchers focused on 801 subjects with MS and matched them to 1,566 controls. Only 1 of the 801 subjects with MS had a negative EBV test prior to diagnosis, a fact that researchers believe could be due to a factor such as a failure to seroconvert during infection. “At baseline, 35 MS cases and 107 controls were EBV-negative,” the study reported. “All but one of these 35 EBV-negative MS cases became infected with EBV during the follow-up.”

Overall, subjects who were positive for EBV were 32.4 times to develop MS than those who weren’t (95% confidence interval, 4.3-245.3; P < 0.001).

Is it possible that immune dysregulation from MS precedes EBV infection? The researchers analyzed viruses in 30 subjects with MS – before and after MS onset – and in 30 controls. The findings suggested that EBV was the major player, Dr. Ascherio said.

Researchers also focused on cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, which is closely related to EBV and to the chicken pox virus. “CMV seroconversion is not associated with MS, and positivity for CMV at baseline was associated with a modestly lower risk of MS,” Dr. Ascherio said.

In the big picture, “this data establishes beyond reasonable doubt that MS is a rare complication of EBV infection,” Dr. Ascherio said. “The main question now is whether the virus triggers an immune process that then is self-maintained, or whether the presence of the infection keeps feeding the immune process.”
 

Inadequate evidence for causation

In his presentation, Dr. Robinson asked: “Does EBV cause MS? Really? All of MS? In humans [with MS], yes, we found monoclonal antibodies expressed by the B cells that bound to EBV. But we also found spinal fluid B cells and coding antibodies that bound to multiple other viruses, including rubella, VZV [varicella-zoster virus/chickenpox], CMV, and HSV [herpes simplex virus]. And there’s even a measles reactive antibody there.”

And there’s evidence that human herpes virus type 6 (HHV-6) and HHV-6A could be linked to MS: “Maybe HHV-6 or HHV-6A is the cause of MS in a subset of patients,” Dr. Robinson said. Research suggests that pox viruses could be another possible cause, he said.

He added: “I’m a rheumatologist, and I see patients in the clinic and in the hospital who have lupus, a disease highly associated with EBV infection. But they definitely do not have MS, nor do they have RA [rheumatoid arthritis], and likewise your MS patients don’t have lupus. What’s up with all these diseases potentially being linked to EBV?”
 

A missing piece of the puzzle?

In a discussion period, Dr. Ascherio responded to Dr. Robinson by saying he’s waiting to see evidence that patients with the other diseases linked to EBV don’t develop them if they’re EBV-negative. Dr. Ascherio added that it’s possible that there are different strains of EBV, and some may be more likely to cause MS.

What does this all mean for MS prevention? In a commentary published with Dr. Ascherio’s 2022 study, Dr. Robinson and a coauthor asked: “Would a vaccine against EBV protect against MS? Can the B cells that dwell in the CSF be killed or inactivated with therapeutics? Would antivirals that target EBV provide effective therapy, especially when given early in the course of disease? Now that the initial trigger for MS has been identified, perhaps MS could be eradicated.”

Dr. Ascherio discloses speaker/consultant relationships with Prada Foundation, WebMD, Biogen, Moderna, Merck, Roche, and GSK. Dr. Robinson discloses unspecified relationships with Altreca and Flatiron Bio, and he is a coinventor on a patent application filed by Stanford University that includes antibodies to EBV.
 

MILAN – Two physicians agreed that there’s no doubt that Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is deeply linked to multiple sclerosis (MS), but they diverged over the extent of its role in a joint presentation at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.

Armed with the findings of his own landmark 2022 study into EBV and MS, Harvard Medical School, Boston, professor of medicine Alberto Ascherio, MD, DrPH, argued that they’re tightly connected. But rheumatologist William H. Robinson, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said that while he also believes EBV plays a significant role in MS, “there’s likely a role for a second hit” – some other factor. “Why are 95% of us EBV-infected, but only a small subset ultimately develop MS or ... other autoimmune diseases?”

As a 2023 review noted, researchers have puzzled over the connection between EBV and MS since the early 1980s. “Until that point, EBV was primarily viewed as a cancer-causing agent, but the culmination of evidence now shows that EBV has a pivotal role in development of MS.” But it’s not clear how EBV – which strikes more than an estimated 95% of humans and causes mononucleosis – manages to trigger MS.
 

A rare complication of EBV infection

In the 2022 study, Dr. Ascherio aimed to understand exactly how deeply EBV and MS are connected by analyzing serum data gathered from more than 10 million active-duty members of the U.S. military. Of those, 955 were diagnosed with MS.

The researchers focused on 801 subjects with MS and matched them to 1,566 controls. Only 1 of the 801 subjects with MS had a negative EBV test prior to diagnosis, a fact that researchers believe could be due to a factor such as a failure to seroconvert during infection. “At baseline, 35 MS cases and 107 controls were EBV-negative,” the study reported. “All but one of these 35 EBV-negative MS cases became infected with EBV during the follow-up.”

Overall, subjects who were positive for EBV were 32.4 times to develop MS than those who weren’t (95% confidence interval, 4.3-245.3; P < 0.001).

Is it possible that immune dysregulation from MS precedes EBV infection? The researchers analyzed viruses in 30 subjects with MS – before and after MS onset – and in 30 controls. The findings suggested that EBV was the major player, Dr. Ascherio said.

Researchers also focused on cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, which is closely related to EBV and to the chicken pox virus. “CMV seroconversion is not associated with MS, and positivity for CMV at baseline was associated with a modestly lower risk of MS,” Dr. Ascherio said.

In the big picture, “this data establishes beyond reasonable doubt that MS is a rare complication of EBV infection,” Dr. Ascherio said. “The main question now is whether the virus triggers an immune process that then is self-maintained, or whether the presence of the infection keeps feeding the immune process.”
 

Inadequate evidence for causation

In his presentation, Dr. Robinson asked: “Does EBV cause MS? Really? All of MS? In humans [with MS], yes, we found monoclonal antibodies expressed by the B cells that bound to EBV. But we also found spinal fluid B cells and coding antibodies that bound to multiple other viruses, including rubella, VZV [varicella-zoster virus/chickenpox], CMV, and HSV [herpes simplex virus]. And there’s even a measles reactive antibody there.”

And there’s evidence that human herpes virus type 6 (HHV-6) and HHV-6A could be linked to MS: “Maybe HHV-6 or HHV-6A is the cause of MS in a subset of patients,” Dr. Robinson said. Research suggests that pox viruses could be another possible cause, he said.

He added: “I’m a rheumatologist, and I see patients in the clinic and in the hospital who have lupus, a disease highly associated with EBV infection. But they definitely do not have MS, nor do they have RA [rheumatoid arthritis], and likewise your MS patients don’t have lupus. What’s up with all these diseases potentially being linked to EBV?”
 

A missing piece of the puzzle?

In a discussion period, Dr. Ascherio responded to Dr. Robinson by saying he’s waiting to see evidence that patients with the other diseases linked to EBV don’t develop them if they’re EBV-negative. Dr. Ascherio added that it’s possible that there are different strains of EBV, and some may be more likely to cause MS.

What does this all mean for MS prevention? In a commentary published with Dr. Ascherio’s 2022 study, Dr. Robinson and a coauthor asked: “Would a vaccine against EBV protect against MS? Can the B cells that dwell in the CSF be killed or inactivated with therapeutics? Would antivirals that target EBV provide effective therapy, especially when given early in the course of disease? Now that the initial trigger for MS has been identified, perhaps MS could be eradicated.”

Dr. Ascherio discloses speaker/consultant relationships with Prada Foundation, WebMD, Biogen, Moderna, Merck, Roche, and GSK. Dr. Robinson discloses unspecified relationships with Altreca and Flatiron Bio, and he is a coinventor on a patent application filed by Stanford University that includes antibodies to EBV.
 

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I’m Hans-Christoph Diener from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. I would like to give you an update on what was reported during the International Headache Congress in Seoul in September.
 

CGRP receptor agonists

Let me start with the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Until recently, we had analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen, ergot alkaloids, and triptans. There are new developments, which are small molecules that are antagonists at the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor. At the moment, we have three of them: rimegepant 75 mg, ubrogepant 50 mg or 100 mg, and zavegepant (a nasal spray) 10 mg.

These are all effective and superior to placebo. The 2-hour pain-free rate is somewhere between 25% and 30%. They have very few side effects; these include a little bit of nausea, somnolence, nasopharyngitis, and for zavegepant, the nasal spray, taste disturbance. In indirect comparisons, the so-called gepants are about as effective as ibuprofen and aspirin, and they seem to be less effective than sumatriptan 100 mg.

Unfortunately, until now, we have no direct comparison with triptans and we have no data demonstrating whether they are effective in people where triptans do not work. The major shortcoming is the cost in the United States. The cost per tablet or nasal spray is somewhere between $80 and $200. This means we definitely need more studies for these gepants.
 

Migraine prophylaxis

Let me move to the prophylaxis of migraine with drugs. Previously and still, we have all medications like beta-blockers, flunarizine, topiramate, valproic acid, amitriptyline, and candesartan, and for chronic migraine, onabotulinumtoxinA. We have now 5 years’ experience with the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP receptor like eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab.

These are all equally effective. They reduce migraine-days between 3 and 7 per month. They are effective both in episodic and chronic migraine, and most importantly, they are effective in people with medication overuse headaches. The 50% responder rates are somewhere between 40% and 60%, and there are no significant differences between the four monoclonal antibodies.

The major advantage is a very good tolerability profile; very few patients terminate treatment because of adverse events. There has been, with one exception, no direct comparison of the monoclonal antibodies with traditional migraine preventive drugs or onabotulinumtoxinA. The only exception is a trial that compared topiramate and erenumab, showing that erenumab was definitely more effective and better tolerated.

At the moment, the recommendation is to use these monoclonal antibodies for 12 months in episodic migraine and 24 months in chronic migraine and then pause. It usually turns out that between 50% and 70% of these patients need to continue the treatment. If they are not working, there is a possibility to switch between the monoclonal antibodies, and the success rate after this is somewhere between 15% and 30%.

Gepants were also developed for the prevention of migraine. Here, we have rimegepant 75 mg every other day or atogepant 60 mg daily. They are effective, but in indirect comparisons, they are less effective than the monoclonal antibodies. At present, we have no comparative trials with monoclonal antibodies or the traditional migraine preventive drugs.

Potential patients are those who have needle phobia or patients who do not respond to monoclonal antibodies. Again, the biggest shortcoming is cost in the United States. The cost per year for migraine prevention or prophylaxis is between $12,000 and $20,000.

Finally, we also had very exciting news. There is a new therapeutic approach via PACAP. PACAP is pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide, which has similar biological actions as CGRP but with additional actions. It could very well be that people who do not respond to a monoclonal antibody would respond to a monoclonal antibody against PACAP.

At the congress, the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a monoclonal antibody against PACAP was presented. This monoclonal antibody was effective in a population of people in whom prior preventive therapy had failed. A phase 3 study is planned, and most probably the PACAP monoclonal could work in people who do not respond to monoclonal antibodies against CGRP.

Dear colleagues, we have now many choices for the acute treatment of migraine and migraine prophylaxis. We have new kids on the block, and we have to learn more about how to use these drugs, their benefits, and their shortcomings.

He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards or oral presentations from: Abbott; Addex Pharma; Alder; Allergan; Almirall; Amgen; Autonomic Technology; AstraZeneca; Bayer Vital; Berlin Chemie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; Chordate; CoAxia; Corimmun; Covidien; Coherex; CoLucid; Daiichi-Sankyo; D-Pharm; Electrocore; Fresenius; GlaxoSmithKline; Grunenthal; Janssen-Cilag; Labrys Biologics Lilly; La Roche; 3M Medica; MSD; Medtronic; Menarini; MindFrame; Minster; Neuroscore; Neurobiological Technologies; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Johnson & Johnson; Knoll; Paion; Parke-Davis; Pierre Fabre; Pfizer; Schaper and Brummer; Sanofi-Aventis; Schering-Plough; Servier; Solvay; Syngis; St. Jude; Talecris; Thrombogenics; WebMD Global; Weber and Weber; Wyeth; and Yamanouchi.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I’m Hans-Christoph Diener from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. I would like to give you an update on what was reported during the International Headache Congress in Seoul in September.
 

CGRP receptor agonists

Let me start with the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Until recently, we had analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen, ergot alkaloids, and triptans. There are new developments, which are small molecules that are antagonists at the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor. At the moment, we have three of them: rimegepant 75 mg, ubrogepant 50 mg or 100 mg, and zavegepant (a nasal spray) 10 mg.

These are all effective and superior to placebo. The 2-hour pain-free rate is somewhere between 25% and 30%. They have very few side effects; these include a little bit of nausea, somnolence, nasopharyngitis, and for zavegepant, the nasal spray, taste disturbance. In indirect comparisons, the so-called gepants are about as effective as ibuprofen and aspirin, and they seem to be less effective than sumatriptan 100 mg.

Unfortunately, until now, we have no direct comparison with triptans and we have no data demonstrating whether they are effective in people where triptans do not work. The major shortcoming is the cost in the United States. The cost per tablet or nasal spray is somewhere between $80 and $200. This means we definitely need more studies for these gepants.
 

Migraine prophylaxis

Let me move to the prophylaxis of migraine with drugs. Previously and still, we have all medications like beta-blockers, flunarizine, topiramate, valproic acid, amitriptyline, and candesartan, and for chronic migraine, onabotulinumtoxinA. We have now 5 years’ experience with the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP receptor like eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab.

These are all equally effective. They reduce migraine-days between 3 and 7 per month. They are effective both in episodic and chronic migraine, and most importantly, they are effective in people with medication overuse headaches. The 50% responder rates are somewhere between 40% and 60%, and there are no significant differences between the four monoclonal antibodies.

The major advantage is a very good tolerability profile; very few patients terminate treatment because of adverse events. There has been, with one exception, no direct comparison of the monoclonal antibodies with traditional migraine preventive drugs or onabotulinumtoxinA. The only exception is a trial that compared topiramate and erenumab, showing that erenumab was definitely more effective and better tolerated.

At the moment, the recommendation is to use these monoclonal antibodies for 12 months in episodic migraine and 24 months in chronic migraine and then pause. It usually turns out that between 50% and 70% of these patients need to continue the treatment. If they are not working, there is a possibility to switch between the monoclonal antibodies, and the success rate after this is somewhere between 15% and 30%.

Gepants were also developed for the prevention of migraine. Here, we have rimegepant 75 mg every other day or atogepant 60 mg daily. They are effective, but in indirect comparisons, they are less effective than the monoclonal antibodies. At present, we have no comparative trials with monoclonal antibodies or the traditional migraine preventive drugs.

Potential patients are those who have needle phobia or patients who do not respond to monoclonal antibodies. Again, the biggest shortcoming is cost in the United States. The cost per year for migraine prevention or prophylaxis is between $12,000 and $20,000.

Finally, we also had very exciting news. There is a new therapeutic approach via PACAP. PACAP is pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide, which has similar biological actions as CGRP but with additional actions. It could very well be that people who do not respond to a monoclonal antibody would respond to a monoclonal antibody against PACAP.

At the congress, the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a monoclonal antibody against PACAP was presented. This monoclonal antibody was effective in a population of people in whom prior preventive therapy had failed. A phase 3 study is planned, and most probably the PACAP monoclonal could work in people who do not respond to monoclonal antibodies against CGRP.

Dear colleagues, we have now many choices for the acute treatment of migraine and migraine prophylaxis. We have new kids on the block, and we have to learn more about how to use these drugs, their benefits, and their shortcomings.

He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards or oral presentations from: Abbott; Addex Pharma; Alder; Allergan; Almirall; Amgen; Autonomic Technology; AstraZeneca; Bayer Vital; Berlin Chemie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; Chordate; CoAxia; Corimmun; Covidien; Coherex; CoLucid; Daiichi-Sankyo; D-Pharm; Electrocore; Fresenius; GlaxoSmithKline; Grunenthal; Janssen-Cilag; Labrys Biologics Lilly; La Roche; 3M Medica; MSD; Medtronic; Menarini; MindFrame; Minster; Neuroscore; Neurobiological Technologies; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Johnson & Johnson; Knoll; Paion; Parke-Davis; Pierre Fabre; Pfizer; Schaper and Brummer; Sanofi-Aventis; Schering-Plough; Servier; Solvay; Syngis; St. Jude; Talecris; Thrombogenics; WebMD Global; Weber and Weber; Wyeth; and Yamanouchi.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I’m Hans-Christoph Diener from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. I would like to give you an update on what was reported during the International Headache Congress in Seoul in September.
 

CGRP receptor agonists

Let me start with the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Until recently, we had analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen, ergot alkaloids, and triptans. There are new developments, which are small molecules that are antagonists at the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor. At the moment, we have three of them: rimegepant 75 mg, ubrogepant 50 mg or 100 mg, and zavegepant (a nasal spray) 10 mg.

These are all effective and superior to placebo. The 2-hour pain-free rate is somewhere between 25% and 30%. They have very few side effects; these include a little bit of nausea, somnolence, nasopharyngitis, and for zavegepant, the nasal spray, taste disturbance. In indirect comparisons, the so-called gepants are about as effective as ibuprofen and aspirin, and they seem to be less effective than sumatriptan 100 mg.

Unfortunately, until now, we have no direct comparison with triptans and we have no data demonstrating whether they are effective in people where triptans do not work. The major shortcoming is the cost in the United States. The cost per tablet or nasal spray is somewhere between $80 and $200. This means we definitely need more studies for these gepants.
 

Migraine prophylaxis

Let me move to the prophylaxis of migraine with drugs. Previously and still, we have all medications like beta-blockers, flunarizine, topiramate, valproic acid, amitriptyline, and candesartan, and for chronic migraine, onabotulinumtoxinA. We have now 5 years’ experience with the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP receptor like eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab.

These are all equally effective. They reduce migraine-days between 3 and 7 per month. They are effective both in episodic and chronic migraine, and most importantly, they are effective in people with medication overuse headaches. The 50% responder rates are somewhere between 40% and 60%, and there are no significant differences between the four monoclonal antibodies.

The major advantage is a very good tolerability profile; very few patients terminate treatment because of adverse events. There has been, with one exception, no direct comparison of the monoclonal antibodies with traditional migraine preventive drugs or onabotulinumtoxinA. The only exception is a trial that compared topiramate and erenumab, showing that erenumab was definitely more effective and better tolerated.

At the moment, the recommendation is to use these monoclonal antibodies for 12 months in episodic migraine and 24 months in chronic migraine and then pause. It usually turns out that between 50% and 70% of these patients need to continue the treatment. If they are not working, there is a possibility to switch between the monoclonal antibodies, and the success rate after this is somewhere between 15% and 30%.

Gepants were also developed for the prevention of migraine. Here, we have rimegepant 75 mg every other day or atogepant 60 mg daily. They are effective, but in indirect comparisons, they are less effective than the monoclonal antibodies. At present, we have no comparative trials with monoclonal antibodies or the traditional migraine preventive drugs.

Potential patients are those who have needle phobia or patients who do not respond to monoclonal antibodies. Again, the biggest shortcoming is cost in the United States. The cost per year for migraine prevention or prophylaxis is between $12,000 and $20,000.

Finally, we also had very exciting news. There is a new therapeutic approach via PACAP. PACAP is pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide, which has similar biological actions as CGRP but with additional actions. It could very well be that people who do not respond to a monoclonal antibody would respond to a monoclonal antibody against PACAP.

At the congress, the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a monoclonal antibody against PACAP was presented. This monoclonal antibody was effective in a population of people in whom prior preventive therapy had failed. A phase 3 study is planned, and most probably the PACAP monoclonal could work in people who do not respond to monoclonal antibodies against CGRP.

Dear colleagues, we have now many choices for the acute treatment of migraine and migraine prophylaxis. We have new kids on the block, and we have to learn more about how to use these drugs, their benefits, and their shortcomings.

He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards or oral presentations from: Abbott; Addex Pharma; Alder; Allergan; Almirall; Amgen; Autonomic Technology; AstraZeneca; Bayer Vital; Berlin Chemie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; Chordate; CoAxia; Corimmun; Covidien; Coherex; CoLucid; Daiichi-Sankyo; D-Pharm; Electrocore; Fresenius; GlaxoSmithKline; Grunenthal; Janssen-Cilag; Labrys Biologics Lilly; La Roche; 3M Medica; MSD; Medtronic; Menarini; MindFrame; Minster; Neuroscore; Neurobiological Technologies; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Johnson & Johnson; Knoll; Paion; Parke-Davis; Pierre Fabre; Pfizer; Schaper and Brummer; Sanofi-Aventis; Schering-Plough; Servier; Solvay; Syngis; St. Jude; Talecris; Thrombogenics; WebMD Global; Weber and Weber; Wyeth; and Yamanouchi.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“What do you think about the whole Israel thing?”

That question came at the end of an otherwise routine appointment.

My answer surprised her, but she didn’t push it. She paid her copay, scheduled a follow-up for 3 months, and left.

As I’ve written before, I try to avoid all news except the local weather. The sad reality is that most of it is bad and there’s nothing I can really do about it. It only upsets me, which isn’t good for my mental health and blood pressure, and if I can’t change it, what’s the point of knowing? It falls under the serenity prayer.

Of course, some news stories are too big not to hear something. I pass TVs in the doctors lounge or coffee house, hear others talking as I stand in line for the elevator, or see blurbs go by when checking the weather. It’s not entirely unavoidable.

I’m not trivializing the Middle East. But, to me, it’s not part of the doctor-patient relationship any more than my political views are. You run the risk of driving a wedge between you and the person you’re caring for. If you don’t like their opinion, you may find yourself less interested in them and their care. If they don’t like your opinion on news, they may start to question your ability as a doctor.

That’s not what we strive for, but it can be human nature. For better or worse we often reduce things to “us against them,” and learning someone is on the opposite side may, even subconsciously, alter how you treat them.

That’s not good, so to me it’s best not to know.

Some may think I’m being petty, or aloof, to be unwilling to discuss nonmedical issues of significance, but I don’t see it that way. Time is limited at the appointment and is best spent on medical care. Something unrelated to the visit that may alter my objective opinion of a patient – or theirs of me as a doctor – is best left out of it.

I’m here to be your doctor, and to do the best I can for you. I’m not here to be a debate partner. Whenever a patient asks me a question on politics or news I always think of the Monty Python skit “Argument Clinic.” That’s not why you’re here. There are plenty places to discuss such things. My office isn’t one of them.

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

“What do you think about the whole Israel thing?”

That question came at the end of an otherwise routine appointment.

My answer surprised her, but she didn’t push it. She paid her copay, scheduled a follow-up for 3 months, and left.

As I’ve written before, I try to avoid all news except the local weather. The sad reality is that most of it is bad and there’s nothing I can really do about it. It only upsets me, which isn’t good for my mental health and blood pressure, and if I can’t change it, what’s the point of knowing? It falls under the serenity prayer.

Of course, some news stories are too big not to hear something. I pass TVs in the doctors lounge or coffee house, hear others talking as I stand in line for the elevator, or see blurbs go by when checking the weather. It’s not entirely unavoidable.

I’m not trivializing the Middle East. But, to me, it’s not part of the doctor-patient relationship any more than my political views are. You run the risk of driving a wedge between you and the person you’re caring for. If you don’t like their opinion, you may find yourself less interested in them and their care. If they don’t like your opinion on news, they may start to question your ability as a doctor.

That’s not what we strive for, but it can be human nature. For better or worse we often reduce things to “us against them,” and learning someone is on the opposite side may, even subconsciously, alter how you treat them.

That’s not good, so to me it’s best not to know.

Some may think I’m being petty, or aloof, to be unwilling to discuss nonmedical issues of significance, but I don’t see it that way. Time is limited at the appointment and is best spent on medical care. Something unrelated to the visit that may alter my objective opinion of a patient – or theirs of me as a doctor – is best left out of it.

I’m here to be your doctor, and to do the best I can for you. I’m not here to be a debate partner. Whenever a patient asks me a question on politics or news I always think of the Monty Python skit “Argument Clinic.” That’s not why you’re here. There are plenty places to discuss such things. My office isn’t one of them.

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

“What do you think about the whole Israel thing?”

That question came at the end of an otherwise routine appointment.

My answer surprised her, but she didn’t push it. She paid her copay, scheduled a follow-up for 3 months, and left.

As I’ve written before, I try to avoid all news except the local weather. The sad reality is that most of it is bad and there’s nothing I can really do about it. It only upsets me, which isn’t good for my mental health and blood pressure, and if I can’t change it, what’s the point of knowing? It falls under the serenity prayer.

Of course, some news stories are too big not to hear something. I pass TVs in the doctors lounge or coffee house, hear others talking as I stand in line for the elevator, or see blurbs go by when checking the weather. It’s not entirely unavoidable.

I’m not trivializing the Middle East. But, to me, it’s not part of the doctor-patient relationship any more than my political views are. You run the risk of driving a wedge between you and the person you’re caring for. If you don’t like their opinion, you may find yourself less interested in them and their care. If they don’t like your opinion on news, they may start to question your ability as a doctor.

That’s not what we strive for, but it can be human nature. For better or worse we often reduce things to “us against them,” and learning someone is on the opposite side may, even subconsciously, alter how you treat them.

That’s not good, so to me it’s best not to know.

Some may think I’m being petty, or aloof, to be unwilling to discuss nonmedical issues of significance, but I don’t see it that way. Time is limited at the appointment and is best spent on medical care. Something unrelated to the visit that may alter my objective opinion of a patient – or theirs of me as a doctor – is best left out of it.

I’m here to be your doctor, and to do the best I can for you. I’m not here to be a debate partner. Whenever a patient asks me a question on politics or news I always think of the Monty Python skit “Argument Clinic.” That’s not why you’re here. There are plenty places to discuss such things. My office isn’t one of them.

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