Neurology Reviews

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

Stroke patients receiving thrombolysis do not appear to be at increased risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) if they are taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), a new study has found.

The study, the largest ever regarding the safety of thrombolysis in patients on DOACs, actually found a lower rate of sICH among patients taking DOACs than among those not taking anticoagulants.

“Thrombolysis is a backbone therapy in stroke, but the large population of patients who take DOACs are currently excluded from this treatment because DOAC use is a contraindication to treatment with thrombolysis. This is based on the presumption of an increased risk of sICH, but data to support or refute this presumption are lacking,” said senior author David J. Seiffge, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.

“Our results suggest that current guidelines need to be revised to remove the absolute contraindication of thrombolysis in patients on DOACs. The guidelines need to be more liberal on the use of thrombolysis in these patients,” he added.

“This study provides the basis for extending vital thrombolysis treatment to this substantial population of patients who take DOACs,” Dr. Seiffge said.

He estimates that 1 of every 6 stroke patients are taking a DOAC and that 1% to 2% of patients taking DOACs have a stroke each year. “As millions of patients are on DOACs, this is a large number of people who are not getting potentially life-saving thrombolysis therapy.”

Dr. Seiffge comments: “In our hospital we see at least one stroke patient on DOACs every day. It is a very frequent scenario. With this new data, we believe many of these patients could now benefit from thrombolysis without an increased bleeding risk.”

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.
 

An international investigation

While thrombolysis is currently contraindicated for patients taking DOACs, some clinicians still administer thrombolysis to these patients. Different selection strategies are used, including the use of DOAC reversal agents prior to thrombolysis or the selection of patients with low anticoagulant activity, the authors noted.

The current study involved an international collaboration. The investigators compared the risk of sICH among patients who had recently taken DOACs and who underwent thrombolysis as treatment for acute ischemic stroke with the risk among control stroke patients who underwent thrombolysis but who had not been taking DOACs.

Potential contributing centers were identified by a systematic search of the literature based on published studies on the use of thrombolysis for patients who had recently taken DOACs or prospective stroke registries that may include patients who had recently taken DOACs.

The study included 832 patients from 64 centers worldwide who were confirmed to have taken a DOAC within 48 hours of receiving thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. The comparison group was made up of 32,375 patients who had experienced ischemic stroke that was treated with thrombolysis but who had received no prior anticoagulation therapy.

Compared with control patients, patients who had recently taken DOACs were older; the incidence of hypertension among them was higher; they had a higher degree of prestroke disability; they were less likely to be smokers; the time from symptom onset to treatment was longer; they had experienced more severe stroke; and they were more likely to have a large-vessel occlusion.

Of the patients taking DOACs, 30.3% received DOAC reversal prior to thrombolysis. For 27.0%, DOAC plasma levels were measured. The remainder were treated with thrombolysis without either of these selection methods.

Results showed that the unadjusted rate of sICH was 2.5% among patients taking DOACs, compared with 4.1% among control patients who were not taking anticoagulants.

After adjustment for stroke severity and other baseline sICH predictors, patients who had recently taken DOACs and who received thrombolysis had lower odds of developing sICH (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.92; P = .02).

There was no difference between the selection strategies, and results were consistent in different sensitivity analyses.

The secondary outcome of any ICH occurred in 18.0% in patients taking DOACs, compared with 17.4% among control patients who used no anticoagulants. After adjustment, there was no difference in the odds for any ICH between the groups (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.45; P = .14).

The unadjusted rate of functional independence was 45% among patients taking DOACs, compared with 57% among control patients. After adjustment, patients who had recently taken DOACs and who underwent thrombolysis had numerically higher odds of being functionally independent than control patients, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.36; P = .20).

The association of DOAC therapy with lower odds of sICH remained when mechanical thrombectomy, large-vessel occlusion, or concomitant antiplatelet therapy was added to the model.

“This is by far the largest study to look at this issue of thrombolytic use in patients on DOACs, and we did not find any group on DOACs that had an excess ICH rate with thrombolysis,” Dr. Seiffge said,

He explained that receiving warfarin was at one time an absolute contraindication for thrombolysis, but after a 2014 study suggested that the risk was not increased for patients with an international normalized ratio below 117, this was downgraded to a relative contraindication.

“We think our study is comparable and should lead to a guideline change,” Dr. Seiffge commented.

“A relative contraindication allows clinicians the space to make a considered decision on an individual basis,” he added.

Dr. Seiffge said that at his hospital, local guidelines regarding this issue have already been changed on the basis of these data, and use of DOACs is now considered a relative contraindication.

“International guidelines can take years to update, so in the meantime, I think other centers will also go ahead with a more liberal approach. There are always some centers that are ahead of the guidelines,” he added.

Although the lower risk of sICH seen in patients who have recently used DOACs seems counterintuitive at first glance, there could be a pathophysiologic explanation for this finding, the authors suggest.

They point out that thrombin inhibition, either directly or via the coagulation cascade, might be protective against the occurrence of sICH.

“Anticoagulants may allow the clot to respond better to thrombolysis – the clot is not as solid and is easier to recanalize. This leads to smaller strokes and a lower bleeding risk. Thrombin generation is also a major driver for blood brain barrier breakdown. DOACs reduce thrombin generation, so reduce blood brain barrier breakdown and reduce bleeding,” Dr. Seiffge explained. “But these are hypotheses,” he added.
 

Study ‘meaningfully advances the field’

In an accompanying editorial, Eva A. Mistry, MBBS, University of Cincinnati, said the current study “meaningfully advances the field” and provides an estimation of safety of intravenous thrombolysis among patients who have taken DOACs within 48 hours of hospital admission.

She lists strengths of the study as inclusion of a large number of patients across several geographically diverse institutions with heterogeneous standard practices for thrombolysis with recent DOAC use and narrow confidence intervals regarding observed rates of sICH.

“Further, the upper bound of this confidence interval for the DOAC group is below 4%, which is a welcome result and provides supportive data for clinicians who already practice thrombolysis for patients with recent DOAC ingestion,” Dr. Mistry adds.

However, she points out several study limitations, which she says limit immediate, widespread clinical applicability.

These include use of a nonconcurrent control population, which included patients from centers that did not contribute to the DOAC group and the inclusion of Asian patients who likely received a lower thrombolytic dose.

Dr. Seiffge noted that the researchers did adjust for Asian patients but not for the thrombolytic dosage. “I personally do not think this affects the results, as Asian patients have a lower dosage because they have a higher bleeding risk. The lower bleeding risk with DOACs was seen in all continents.”

Dr. Mistry also suggests that the DOAC group itself is prone to selection bias from preferential thrombolysis of patients receiving DOAC who are at lower risk of sICH.

But Dr. Seiffge argued: “I think, actually, the opposite is true. The DOAC patients were older, had more severe comorbidities, and an increased bleeding risk.”

Dr. Mistry concluded, “Despite the limitations of the study design and enrolled population, these data may be used by clinicians to make individualized decisions regarding thrombolysis among patients with recent DOAC use. Importantly, this study lays the foundation for prospective, well-powered studies that definitively determine the safety of thrombolysis in this population.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation. Dr. Seiffge received grants from Bangerter Rhyner Foundation during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Bayer, Alexion, and VarmX outside the submitted work. Dr. Mistry receives grant funding from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and serves as a consultant for RAPID AI.

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

Stroke patients receiving thrombolysis do not appear to be at increased risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) if they are taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), a new study has found.

The study, the largest ever regarding the safety of thrombolysis in patients on DOACs, actually found a lower rate of sICH among patients taking DOACs than among those not taking anticoagulants.

“Thrombolysis is a backbone therapy in stroke, but the large population of patients who take DOACs are currently excluded from this treatment because DOAC use is a contraindication to treatment with thrombolysis. This is based on the presumption of an increased risk of sICH, but data to support or refute this presumption are lacking,” said senior author David J. Seiffge, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.

“Our results suggest that current guidelines need to be revised to remove the absolute contraindication of thrombolysis in patients on DOACs. The guidelines need to be more liberal on the use of thrombolysis in these patients,” he added.

“This study provides the basis for extending vital thrombolysis treatment to this substantial population of patients who take DOACs,” Dr. Seiffge said.

He estimates that 1 of every 6 stroke patients are taking a DOAC and that 1% to 2% of patients taking DOACs have a stroke each year. “As millions of patients are on DOACs, this is a large number of people who are not getting potentially life-saving thrombolysis therapy.”

Dr. Seiffge comments: “In our hospital we see at least one stroke patient on DOACs every day. It is a very frequent scenario. With this new data, we believe many of these patients could now benefit from thrombolysis without an increased bleeding risk.”

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.
 

An international investigation

While thrombolysis is currently contraindicated for patients taking DOACs, some clinicians still administer thrombolysis to these patients. Different selection strategies are used, including the use of DOAC reversal agents prior to thrombolysis or the selection of patients with low anticoagulant activity, the authors noted.

The current study involved an international collaboration. The investigators compared the risk of sICH among patients who had recently taken DOACs and who underwent thrombolysis as treatment for acute ischemic stroke with the risk among control stroke patients who underwent thrombolysis but who had not been taking DOACs.

Potential contributing centers were identified by a systematic search of the literature based on published studies on the use of thrombolysis for patients who had recently taken DOACs or prospective stroke registries that may include patients who had recently taken DOACs.

The study included 832 patients from 64 centers worldwide who were confirmed to have taken a DOAC within 48 hours of receiving thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. The comparison group was made up of 32,375 patients who had experienced ischemic stroke that was treated with thrombolysis but who had received no prior anticoagulation therapy.

Compared with control patients, patients who had recently taken DOACs were older; the incidence of hypertension among them was higher; they had a higher degree of prestroke disability; they were less likely to be smokers; the time from symptom onset to treatment was longer; they had experienced more severe stroke; and they were more likely to have a large-vessel occlusion.

Of the patients taking DOACs, 30.3% received DOAC reversal prior to thrombolysis. For 27.0%, DOAC plasma levels were measured. The remainder were treated with thrombolysis without either of these selection methods.

Results showed that the unadjusted rate of sICH was 2.5% among patients taking DOACs, compared with 4.1% among control patients who were not taking anticoagulants.

After adjustment for stroke severity and other baseline sICH predictors, patients who had recently taken DOACs and who received thrombolysis had lower odds of developing sICH (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.92; P = .02).

There was no difference between the selection strategies, and results were consistent in different sensitivity analyses.

The secondary outcome of any ICH occurred in 18.0% in patients taking DOACs, compared with 17.4% among control patients who used no anticoagulants. After adjustment, there was no difference in the odds for any ICH between the groups (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.45; P = .14).

The unadjusted rate of functional independence was 45% among patients taking DOACs, compared with 57% among control patients. After adjustment, patients who had recently taken DOACs and who underwent thrombolysis had numerically higher odds of being functionally independent than control patients, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.36; P = .20).

The association of DOAC therapy with lower odds of sICH remained when mechanical thrombectomy, large-vessel occlusion, or concomitant antiplatelet therapy was added to the model.

“This is by far the largest study to look at this issue of thrombolytic use in patients on DOACs, and we did not find any group on DOACs that had an excess ICH rate with thrombolysis,” Dr. Seiffge said,

He explained that receiving warfarin was at one time an absolute contraindication for thrombolysis, but after a 2014 study suggested that the risk was not increased for patients with an international normalized ratio below 117, this was downgraded to a relative contraindication.

“We think our study is comparable and should lead to a guideline change,” Dr. Seiffge commented.

“A relative contraindication allows clinicians the space to make a considered decision on an individual basis,” he added.

Dr. Seiffge said that at his hospital, local guidelines regarding this issue have already been changed on the basis of these data, and use of DOACs is now considered a relative contraindication.

“International guidelines can take years to update, so in the meantime, I think other centers will also go ahead with a more liberal approach. There are always some centers that are ahead of the guidelines,” he added.

Although the lower risk of sICH seen in patients who have recently used DOACs seems counterintuitive at first glance, there could be a pathophysiologic explanation for this finding, the authors suggest.

They point out that thrombin inhibition, either directly or via the coagulation cascade, might be protective against the occurrence of sICH.

“Anticoagulants may allow the clot to respond better to thrombolysis – the clot is not as solid and is easier to recanalize. This leads to smaller strokes and a lower bleeding risk. Thrombin generation is also a major driver for blood brain barrier breakdown. DOACs reduce thrombin generation, so reduce blood brain barrier breakdown and reduce bleeding,” Dr. Seiffge explained. “But these are hypotheses,” he added.
 

Study ‘meaningfully advances the field’

In an accompanying editorial, Eva A. Mistry, MBBS, University of Cincinnati, said the current study “meaningfully advances the field” and provides an estimation of safety of intravenous thrombolysis among patients who have taken DOACs within 48 hours of hospital admission.

She lists strengths of the study as inclusion of a large number of patients across several geographically diverse institutions with heterogeneous standard practices for thrombolysis with recent DOAC use and narrow confidence intervals regarding observed rates of sICH.

“Further, the upper bound of this confidence interval for the DOAC group is below 4%, which is a welcome result and provides supportive data for clinicians who already practice thrombolysis for patients with recent DOAC ingestion,” Dr. Mistry adds.

However, she points out several study limitations, which she says limit immediate, widespread clinical applicability.

These include use of a nonconcurrent control population, which included patients from centers that did not contribute to the DOAC group and the inclusion of Asian patients who likely received a lower thrombolytic dose.

Dr. Seiffge noted that the researchers did adjust for Asian patients but not for the thrombolytic dosage. “I personally do not think this affects the results, as Asian patients have a lower dosage because they have a higher bleeding risk. The lower bleeding risk with DOACs was seen in all continents.”

Dr. Mistry also suggests that the DOAC group itself is prone to selection bias from preferential thrombolysis of patients receiving DOAC who are at lower risk of sICH.

But Dr. Seiffge argued: “I think, actually, the opposite is true. The DOAC patients were older, had more severe comorbidities, and an increased bleeding risk.”

Dr. Mistry concluded, “Despite the limitations of the study design and enrolled population, these data may be used by clinicians to make individualized decisions regarding thrombolysis among patients with recent DOAC use. Importantly, this study lays the foundation for prospective, well-powered studies that definitively determine the safety of thrombolysis in this population.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation. Dr. Seiffge received grants from Bangerter Rhyner Foundation during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Bayer, Alexion, and VarmX outside the submitted work. Dr. Mistry receives grant funding from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and serves as a consultant for RAPID AI.

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

Stroke patients receiving thrombolysis do not appear to be at increased risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) if they are taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), a new study has found.

The study, the largest ever regarding the safety of thrombolysis in patients on DOACs, actually found a lower rate of sICH among patients taking DOACs than among those not taking anticoagulants.

“Thrombolysis is a backbone therapy in stroke, but the large population of patients who take DOACs are currently excluded from this treatment because DOAC use is a contraindication to treatment with thrombolysis. This is based on the presumption of an increased risk of sICH, but data to support or refute this presumption are lacking,” said senior author David J. Seiffge, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.

“Our results suggest that current guidelines need to be revised to remove the absolute contraindication of thrombolysis in patients on DOACs. The guidelines need to be more liberal on the use of thrombolysis in these patients,” he added.

“This study provides the basis for extending vital thrombolysis treatment to this substantial population of patients who take DOACs,” Dr. Seiffge said.

He estimates that 1 of every 6 stroke patients are taking a DOAC and that 1% to 2% of patients taking DOACs have a stroke each year. “As millions of patients are on DOACs, this is a large number of people who are not getting potentially life-saving thrombolysis therapy.”

Dr. Seiffge comments: “In our hospital we see at least one stroke patient on DOACs every day. It is a very frequent scenario. With this new data, we believe many of these patients could now benefit from thrombolysis without an increased bleeding risk.”

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.
 

An international investigation

While thrombolysis is currently contraindicated for patients taking DOACs, some clinicians still administer thrombolysis to these patients. Different selection strategies are used, including the use of DOAC reversal agents prior to thrombolysis or the selection of patients with low anticoagulant activity, the authors noted.

The current study involved an international collaboration. The investigators compared the risk of sICH among patients who had recently taken DOACs and who underwent thrombolysis as treatment for acute ischemic stroke with the risk among control stroke patients who underwent thrombolysis but who had not been taking DOACs.

Potential contributing centers were identified by a systematic search of the literature based on published studies on the use of thrombolysis for patients who had recently taken DOACs or prospective stroke registries that may include patients who had recently taken DOACs.

The study included 832 patients from 64 centers worldwide who were confirmed to have taken a DOAC within 48 hours of receiving thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. The comparison group was made up of 32,375 patients who had experienced ischemic stroke that was treated with thrombolysis but who had received no prior anticoagulation therapy.

Compared with control patients, patients who had recently taken DOACs were older; the incidence of hypertension among them was higher; they had a higher degree of prestroke disability; they were less likely to be smokers; the time from symptom onset to treatment was longer; they had experienced more severe stroke; and they were more likely to have a large-vessel occlusion.

Of the patients taking DOACs, 30.3% received DOAC reversal prior to thrombolysis. For 27.0%, DOAC plasma levels were measured. The remainder were treated with thrombolysis without either of these selection methods.

Results showed that the unadjusted rate of sICH was 2.5% among patients taking DOACs, compared with 4.1% among control patients who were not taking anticoagulants.

After adjustment for stroke severity and other baseline sICH predictors, patients who had recently taken DOACs and who received thrombolysis had lower odds of developing sICH (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.92; P = .02).

There was no difference between the selection strategies, and results were consistent in different sensitivity analyses.

The secondary outcome of any ICH occurred in 18.0% in patients taking DOACs, compared with 17.4% among control patients who used no anticoagulants. After adjustment, there was no difference in the odds for any ICH between the groups (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.45; P = .14).

The unadjusted rate of functional independence was 45% among patients taking DOACs, compared with 57% among control patients. After adjustment, patients who had recently taken DOACs and who underwent thrombolysis had numerically higher odds of being functionally independent than control patients, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.36; P = .20).

The association of DOAC therapy with lower odds of sICH remained when mechanical thrombectomy, large-vessel occlusion, or concomitant antiplatelet therapy was added to the model.

“This is by far the largest study to look at this issue of thrombolytic use in patients on DOACs, and we did not find any group on DOACs that had an excess ICH rate with thrombolysis,” Dr. Seiffge said,

He explained that receiving warfarin was at one time an absolute contraindication for thrombolysis, but after a 2014 study suggested that the risk was not increased for patients with an international normalized ratio below 117, this was downgraded to a relative contraindication.

“We think our study is comparable and should lead to a guideline change,” Dr. Seiffge commented.

“A relative contraindication allows clinicians the space to make a considered decision on an individual basis,” he added.

Dr. Seiffge said that at his hospital, local guidelines regarding this issue have already been changed on the basis of these data, and use of DOACs is now considered a relative contraindication.

“International guidelines can take years to update, so in the meantime, I think other centers will also go ahead with a more liberal approach. There are always some centers that are ahead of the guidelines,” he added.

Although the lower risk of sICH seen in patients who have recently used DOACs seems counterintuitive at first glance, there could be a pathophysiologic explanation for this finding, the authors suggest.

They point out that thrombin inhibition, either directly or via the coagulation cascade, might be protective against the occurrence of sICH.

“Anticoagulants may allow the clot to respond better to thrombolysis – the clot is not as solid and is easier to recanalize. This leads to smaller strokes and a lower bleeding risk. Thrombin generation is also a major driver for blood brain barrier breakdown. DOACs reduce thrombin generation, so reduce blood brain barrier breakdown and reduce bleeding,” Dr. Seiffge explained. “But these are hypotheses,” he added.
 

Study ‘meaningfully advances the field’

In an accompanying editorial, Eva A. Mistry, MBBS, University of Cincinnati, said the current study “meaningfully advances the field” and provides an estimation of safety of intravenous thrombolysis among patients who have taken DOACs within 48 hours of hospital admission.

She lists strengths of the study as inclusion of a large number of patients across several geographically diverse institutions with heterogeneous standard practices for thrombolysis with recent DOAC use and narrow confidence intervals regarding observed rates of sICH.

“Further, the upper bound of this confidence interval for the DOAC group is below 4%, which is a welcome result and provides supportive data for clinicians who already practice thrombolysis for patients with recent DOAC ingestion,” Dr. Mistry adds.

However, she points out several study limitations, which she says limit immediate, widespread clinical applicability.

These include use of a nonconcurrent control population, which included patients from centers that did not contribute to the DOAC group and the inclusion of Asian patients who likely received a lower thrombolytic dose.

Dr. Seiffge noted that the researchers did adjust for Asian patients but not for the thrombolytic dosage. “I personally do not think this affects the results, as Asian patients have a lower dosage because they have a higher bleeding risk. The lower bleeding risk with DOACs was seen in all continents.”

Dr. Mistry also suggests that the DOAC group itself is prone to selection bias from preferential thrombolysis of patients receiving DOAC who are at lower risk of sICH.

But Dr. Seiffge argued: “I think, actually, the opposite is true. The DOAC patients were older, had more severe comorbidities, and an increased bleeding risk.”

Dr. Mistry concluded, “Despite the limitations of the study design and enrolled population, these data may be used by clinicians to make individualized decisions regarding thrombolysis among patients with recent DOAC use. Importantly, this study lays the foundation for prospective, well-powered studies that definitively determine the safety of thrombolysis in this population.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation. Dr. Seiffge received grants from Bangerter Rhyner Foundation during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Bayer, Alexion, and VarmX outside the submitted work. Dr. Mistry receives grant funding from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and serves as a consultant for RAPID AI.

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

U.S. News & World Report recently released its annual ratings of the best diets based on medical and nutritional data. It was the Mediterranean diet for the sixth year in a row.

Does this surprise anyone?

Although first publicized in 1975, the diet really didn’t gain attention until the 1990s. But, since then, the evidence in its favor has steadily grown.

Granted, while it was codified into a diet then, the benefits of fruits and vegetables weren’t exactly a secret beforehand. I’m pretty sure all of us remember being told to eat our vegetables (often repeatedly) while growing up.

So it’s not like we, both medical and nonmedical people, should be surprised at the results.

Is it really going to change anyone’s dietary habits?

Of course it will! It’s the beginning of the new year, and this time people are actually going to stick with their resolutions! For the first time they understand that ... who am I kidding?

For some people (hopefully myself included) there will be success at eating better and taking care of themselves. For most it will be Groundhog Day, both literally and figuratively, when February comes around.

It makes me wonder why this is. We all know what’s good for us. The evidence to support the Mediterranean diet is solid. The foods on it are widely available, often at lower cost than the usual American protein-heavy and processed foods habits. They’re flexible, and, generally taste good.

Yet, for all the evidence behind it, most won’t stick with it. Too many years of habits. Too many stressful days at work that lower our willpower to stick with it. Too many convenient reasons to count.

The question really isn’t “what’s the best diet?” That’s been answered. Realistically I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

The real question is “how do I stick with it?”

And another 5, 10, or 20 years of annually trying to figure out what the best diet is won’t change that.

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

U.S. News & World Report recently released its annual ratings of the best diets based on medical and nutritional data. It was the Mediterranean diet for the sixth year in a row.

Does this surprise anyone?

Although first publicized in 1975, the diet really didn’t gain attention until the 1990s. But, since then, the evidence in its favor has steadily grown.

Granted, while it was codified into a diet then, the benefits of fruits and vegetables weren’t exactly a secret beforehand. I’m pretty sure all of us remember being told to eat our vegetables (often repeatedly) while growing up.

So it’s not like we, both medical and nonmedical people, should be surprised at the results.

Is it really going to change anyone’s dietary habits?

Of course it will! It’s the beginning of the new year, and this time people are actually going to stick with their resolutions! For the first time they understand that ... who am I kidding?

For some people (hopefully myself included) there will be success at eating better and taking care of themselves. For most it will be Groundhog Day, both literally and figuratively, when February comes around.

It makes me wonder why this is. We all know what’s good for us. The evidence to support the Mediterranean diet is solid. The foods on it are widely available, often at lower cost than the usual American protein-heavy and processed foods habits. They’re flexible, and, generally taste good.

Yet, for all the evidence behind it, most won’t stick with it. Too many years of habits. Too many stressful days at work that lower our willpower to stick with it. Too many convenient reasons to count.

The question really isn’t “what’s the best diet?” That’s been answered. Realistically I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

The real question is “how do I stick with it?”

And another 5, 10, or 20 years of annually trying to figure out what the best diet is won’t change that.

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

U.S. News & World Report recently released its annual ratings of the best diets based on medical and nutritional data. It was the Mediterranean diet for the sixth year in a row.

Does this surprise anyone?

Although first publicized in 1975, the diet really didn’t gain attention until the 1990s. But, since then, the evidence in its favor has steadily grown.

Granted, while it was codified into a diet then, the benefits of fruits and vegetables weren’t exactly a secret beforehand. I’m pretty sure all of us remember being told to eat our vegetables (often repeatedly) while growing up.

So it’s not like we, both medical and nonmedical people, should be surprised at the results.

Is it really going to change anyone’s dietary habits?

Of course it will! It’s the beginning of the new year, and this time people are actually going to stick with their resolutions! For the first time they understand that ... who am I kidding?

For some people (hopefully myself included) there will be success at eating better and taking care of themselves. For most it will be Groundhog Day, both literally and figuratively, when February comes around.

It makes me wonder why this is. We all know what’s good for us. The evidence to support the Mediterranean diet is solid. The foods on it are widely available, often at lower cost than the usual American protein-heavy and processed foods habits. They’re flexible, and, generally taste good.

Yet, for all the evidence behind it, most won’t stick with it. Too many years of habits. Too many stressful days at work that lower our willpower to stick with it. Too many convenient reasons to count.

The question really isn’t “what’s the best diet?” That’s been answered. Realistically I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

The real question is “how do I stick with it?”

And another 5, 10, or 20 years of annually trying to figure out what the best diet is won’t change that.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti–amyloid-beta protofibril antibody lecanemab (Leqembi, Eisai) for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease.

Like its controversial cousin aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai), lecanemab was approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway, which can be used to fast-track a drug that provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage over existing treatments for a serious or life-threatening illness.

Unlike aducanumab, however, there was no formal FDA advisory committee meeting on lecanemab prior to approval.

“Alzheimer’s disease immeasurably incapacitates the lives of those who suffer from it and has devastating effects on their loved ones,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

“This treatment option is the latest therapy to target and affect the underlying disease process of Alzheimer’s, instead of only treating the symptoms of the disease,” Dr. Dunn added.

Eisai has reported that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

Modest benefit, adverse events

The FDA noted, “The labeling states that treatment with Leqembi should be initiated in patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease, the population in which treatment was studied in clinical trials.”

The agency approved the treatment on the basis of findings from the CLARITY AD trial, which showed modest cognitive benefit for patients with early AD – but at a cost of increased risk for amyloid-related edema and effusions.

The trial enrolled 1,795 adults with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease in whom amyloid pathology in the brain had been confirmed. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

After 18 months of treatment, lecanemab slowed cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo, as measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). This was an absolute difference of 0.45 points (change from baseline, 1.21 for lecanemab vs. 1.66 with placebo; P < .001).

While the results are “welcome news,” a 0.45-point difference on the CDR-SB might not be clinically meaningful, authors of a recent editorial in The Lancet cautioned.

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities that manifest as edema or microhemorrhages also occurred in one in five patients taking lecanemab.

In addition, a newly published case report in The New England Journal of Medicine describes a patient with Alzheimer’s disease who was taking lecanemab and who died after experiencing numerous intracerebral hemorrhages during treatment with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for acute ischemic stroke.

“The findings raise the possibility of cerebral hemorrhages and necrotizing vasculopathy associated with tPA infusion in a patient with cerebrovascular amyloid who had received lecanemab,” the authors wrote.
 

Alzheimer’s Association reaction

Still, in anticipation of accelerated approval of lecanemab and the antiamyloid drug donanemab (Eli Lilly), which the FDA has also fast-tracked, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request last month with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asking that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s disease treatments.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the association asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and CEO for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release at the time.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike added.

After news of today’s approval was released, Dr. Pike noted in a new release, “The Alzheimer’s Association welcomes and celebrates this action by the FDA. We now have a second approved treatment that changes the course of Alzheimer’s disease in a meaningful way for people in the early stages of the disease.”

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, called today’s approval “a milestone achievement.”

“The progress we’ve seen in not only this class of treatments but also in the diversification of treatment types and targets over the past few years is exciting and provides real hope to those impacted by this devastating disease,” Dr. Carrillo said.
 

Critical issues

Commenting on the approval, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer at Linus Health, said FDA approval of lecanemab and its adoption in the clinic represent a “very exciting development and prospect; but arguably some critical issues need to be considered.”

He noted that the health care system “is not currently prepared to cope with the challenges and demands of lecanemab,” as well as future pharmacologic agents.

“First, we need better workflows to identify suitable patients who can most benefit from this treatment,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone. He added that beyond identification of cognitive difficulties, amyloid status will need to be determined.

“Presently, this requires expensive and invasive tests,” such as positron-emission tomography scans or lumbar punctures for cerebrospinal fluid analysis. However, these are not fully covered by insurance companies and would be challenging to fully scale, he noted.

“In addition to screening, health systems will need to resolve the logistics challenges around the administration of lecanemab with twice-monthly infusions and the need for careful longitudinal evaluations for potential side effects,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone.

“While lecanemab may represent the first disease-modifying therapy widely available for early Alzheimer’s disease, the likely more promising approach is the addition of other therapies to lecanemab as part of a multi-intervention strategy combining pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions,” he added.

Dr. Pascual-Leone has served as a paid member on scientific advisory boards for Neuroelectrics, Magstim, TetraNeuron, Skin2Neuron, MedRhythms, and Hearts Radiant and is a cofounder of TI Solutions and Linus Health.

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

This article was updated 1/9/23.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti–amyloid-beta protofibril antibody lecanemab (Leqembi, Eisai) for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease.

Like its controversial cousin aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai), lecanemab was approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway, which can be used to fast-track a drug that provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage over existing treatments for a serious or life-threatening illness.

Unlike aducanumab, however, there was no formal FDA advisory committee meeting on lecanemab prior to approval.

“Alzheimer’s disease immeasurably incapacitates the lives of those who suffer from it and has devastating effects on their loved ones,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

“This treatment option is the latest therapy to target and affect the underlying disease process of Alzheimer’s, instead of only treating the symptoms of the disease,” Dr. Dunn added.

Eisai has reported that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

Modest benefit, adverse events

The FDA noted, “The labeling states that treatment with Leqembi should be initiated in patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease, the population in which treatment was studied in clinical trials.”

The agency approved the treatment on the basis of findings from the CLARITY AD trial, which showed modest cognitive benefit for patients with early AD – but at a cost of increased risk for amyloid-related edema and effusions.

The trial enrolled 1,795 adults with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease in whom amyloid pathology in the brain had been confirmed. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

After 18 months of treatment, lecanemab slowed cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo, as measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). This was an absolute difference of 0.45 points (change from baseline, 1.21 for lecanemab vs. 1.66 with placebo; P < .001).

While the results are “welcome news,” a 0.45-point difference on the CDR-SB might not be clinically meaningful, authors of a recent editorial in The Lancet cautioned.

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities that manifest as edema or microhemorrhages also occurred in one in five patients taking lecanemab.

In addition, a newly published case report in The New England Journal of Medicine describes a patient with Alzheimer’s disease who was taking lecanemab and who died after experiencing numerous intracerebral hemorrhages during treatment with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for acute ischemic stroke.

“The findings raise the possibility of cerebral hemorrhages and necrotizing vasculopathy associated with tPA infusion in a patient with cerebrovascular amyloid who had received lecanemab,” the authors wrote.
 

Alzheimer’s Association reaction

Still, in anticipation of accelerated approval of lecanemab and the antiamyloid drug donanemab (Eli Lilly), which the FDA has also fast-tracked, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request last month with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asking that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s disease treatments.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the association asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and CEO for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release at the time.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike added.

After news of today’s approval was released, Dr. Pike noted in a new release, “The Alzheimer’s Association welcomes and celebrates this action by the FDA. We now have a second approved treatment that changes the course of Alzheimer’s disease in a meaningful way for people in the early stages of the disease.”

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, called today’s approval “a milestone achievement.”

“The progress we’ve seen in not only this class of treatments but also in the diversification of treatment types and targets over the past few years is exciting and provides real hope to those impacted by this devastating disease,” Dr. Carrillo said.
 

Critical issues

Commenting on the approval, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer at Linus Health, said FDA approval of lecanemab and its adoption in the clinic represent a “very exciting development and prospect; but arguably some critical issues need to be considered.”

He noted that the health care system “is not currently prepared to cope with the challenges and demands of lecanemab,” as well as future pharmacologic agents.

“First, we need better workflows to identify suitable patients who can most benefit from this treatment,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone. He added that beyond identification of cognitive difficulties, amyloid status will need to be determined.

“Presently, this requires expensive and invasive tests,” such as positron-emission tomography scans or lumbar punctures for cerebrospinal fluid analysis. However, these are not fully covered by insurance companies and would be challenging to fully scale, he noted.

“In addition to screening, health systems will need to resolve the logistics challenges around the administration of lecanemab with twice-monthly infusions and the need for careful longitudinal evaluations for potential side effects,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone.

“While lecanemab may represent the first disease-modifying therapy widely available for early Alzheimer’s disease, the likely more promising approach is the addition of other therapies to lecanemab as part of a multi-intervention strategy combining pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions,” he added.

Dr. Pascual-Leone has served as a paid member on scientific advisory boards for Neuroelectrics, Magstim, TetraNeuron, Skin2Neuron, MedRhythms, and Hearts Radiant and is a cofounder of TI Solutions and Linus Health.

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

This article was updated 1/9/23.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti–amyloid-beta protofibril antibody lecanemab (Leqembi, Eisai) for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease.

Like its controversial cousin aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai), lecanemab was approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway, which can be used to fast-track a drug that provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage over existing treatments for a serious or life-threatening illness.

Unlike aducanumab, however, there was no formal FDA advisory committee meeting on lecanemab prior to approval.

“Alzheimer’s disease immeasurably incapacitates the lives of those who suffer from it and has devastating effects on their loved ones,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

“This treatment option is the latest therapy to target and affect the underlying disease process of Alzheimer’s, instead of only treating the symptoms of the disease,” Dr. Dunn added.

Eisai has reported that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

Modest benefit, adverse events

The FDA noted, “The labeling states that treatment with Leqembi should be initiated in patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease, the population in which treatment was studied in clinical trials.”

The agency approved the treatment on the basis of findings from the CLARITY AD trial, which showed modest cognitive benefit for patients with early AD – but at a cost of increased risk for amyloid-related edema and effusions.

The trial enrolled 1,795 adults with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease in whom amyloid pathology in the brain had been confirmed. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

After 18 months of treatment, lecanemab slowed cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo, as measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). This was an absolute difference of 0.45 points (change from baseline, 1.21 for lecanemab vs. 1.66 with placebo; P < .001).

While the results are “welcome news,” a 0.45-point difference on the CDR-SB might not be clinically meaningful, authors of a recent editorial in The Lancet cautioned.

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities that manifest as edema or microhemorrhages also occurred in one in five patients taking lecanemab.

In addition, a newly published case report in The New England Journal of Medicine describes a patient with Alzheimer’s disease who was taking lecanemab and who died after experiencing numerous intracerebral hemorrhages during treatment with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for acute ischemic stroke.

“The findings raise the possibility of cerebral hemorrhages and necrotizing vasculopathy associated with tPA infusion in a patient with cerebrovascular amyloid who had received lecanemab,” the authors wrote.
 

Alzheimer’s Association reaction

Still, in anticipation of accelerated approval of lecanemab and the antiamyloid drug donanemab (Eli Lilly), which the FDA has also fast-tracked, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request last month with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asking that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s disease treatments.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the association asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and CEO for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release at the time.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike added.

After news of today’s approval was released, Dr. Pike noted in a new release, “The Alzheimer’s Association welcomes and celebrates this action by the FDA. We now have a second approved treatment that changes the course of Alzheimer’s disease in a meaningful way for people in the early stages of the disease.”

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, called today’s approval “a milestone achievement.”

“The progress we’ve seen in not only this class of treatments but also in the diversification of treatment types and targets over the past few years is exciting and provides real hope to those impacted by this devastating disease,” Dr. Carrillo said.
 

Critical issues

Commenting on the approval, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer at Linus Health, said FDA approval of lecanemab and its adoption in the clinic represent a “very exciting development and prospect; but arguably some critical issues need to be considered.”

He noted that the health care system “is not currently prepared to cope with the challenges and demands of lecanemab,” as well as future pharmacologic agents.

“First, we need better workflows to identify suitable patients who can most benefit from this treatment,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone. He added that beyond identification of cognitive difficulties, amyloid status will need to be determined.

“Presently, this requires expensive and invasive tests,” such as positron-emission tomography scans or lumbar punctures for cerebrospinal fluid analysis. However, these are not fully covered by insurance companies and would be challenging to fully scale, he noted.

“In addition to screening, health systems will need to resolve the logistics challenges around the administration of lecanemab with twice-monthly infusions and the need for careful longitudinal evaluations for potential side effects,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone.

“While lecanemab may represent the first disease-modifying therapy widely available for early Alzheimer’s disease, the likely more promising approach is the addition of other therapies to lecanemab as part of a multi-intervention strategy combining pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions,” he added.

Dr. Pascual-Leone has served as a paid member on scientific advisory boards for Neuroelectrics, Magstim, TetraNeuron, Skin2Neuron, MedRhythms, and Hearts Radiant and is a cofounder of TI Solutions and Linus Health.

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

This article was updated 1/9/23.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.

Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.

Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
 

Imaging shows reactions

Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.

The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.

They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”

The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.

However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.

“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
 

Chicken-and-egg questions

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.

“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.

“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”

People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.

“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said,  “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”

He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
 

Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour

According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”

“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”

One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.

Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.

Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
 

Imaging shows reactions

Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.

The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.

They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”

The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.

However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.

“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
 

Chicken-and-egg questions

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.

“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.

“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”

People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.

“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said,  “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”

He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
 

Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour

According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”

“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”

One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.

Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.

Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
 

Imaging shows reactions

Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.

The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.

They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”

The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.

However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.

“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
 

Chicken-and-egg questions

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.

“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.

“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”

People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.

“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said,  “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”

He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
 

Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour

According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”

“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”

One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.

Food and Drug Administration officials are concerned about the safety of legal cannabis-infused foods and supplements and may recommend regulating the products later in 2023, according to a new report.

The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018. 

“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal. 

A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.

Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.

Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.

“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”

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

Food and Drug Administration officials are concerned about the safety of legal cannabis-infused foods and supplements and may recommend regulating the products later in 2023, according to a new report.

The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018. 

“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal. 

A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.

Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.

Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.

“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”

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

Food and Drug Administration officials are concerned about the safety of legal cannabis-infused foods and supplements and may recommend regulating the products later in 2023, according to a new report.

The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018. 

“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal. 

A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.

Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.

Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.

“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”

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

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are linked to an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests.

Drawing on data from the UK Biobank, investigators compared more than 1,400 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease with matched control persons and found a considerably higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease among those who had taken AEDs in comparison with those who had not. There was a trend linking a greater number of AED prescriptions and multiple AEDs associated with a greater risk for Parkinson’s disease.

“We observed an association between the most commonly prescribed antiepileptic drugs in the U.K. and Parkinson’s disease using data from UK Biobank,” said senior author Alastair Noyce, PhD, professor of neurology and neuroepidemiology and honorary consultant neurologist, Queen Mary University of London.

“This is the first time that a comprehensive study of the link between AEDs and Parkinson’s disease has been undertaken,” said Dr. Noyce.

He added that the findings have no immediate clinical implications, “but further research is definitely needed, [as] this is an interesting observation made in a research setting.”

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Plausible, but unclear link

Recent observational studies have found a “temporal association” between epilepsy and incident Parkinson’s disease, but the mechanism underlying this association is “unclear,” the authors wrote.

It is “plausible” that AEDs “may account for some or all of the apparent association between epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease” and that movement disorders are potential side effects of AEDs, but the association between AEDs and Parkinson’s disease has “not been well studied,” so it remains “unclear” whether AEDs play a role in the association.

“We have previously reported an association between epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease in several different datasets. Here, we wanted to see if it could be explained by an association with the drugs used to treat epilepsy rather than epilepsy per se,” Dr. Noyce explained.
 

Are AEDs the culprit?

The researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a longitudinal cohort study with more than 500,000 participants, as well as linked primary care medication data to conduct a nested case-control study to investigate this potential association. Participants ranged in age from 40 to 69 years and were recruited between 2006 and 2010.

The researchers compared 1,433 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease with 8,598 control persons who were matched in a 6:1 ratio for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (median [interquartile range] age, 71 [65-75] years; 60.9% men; 97.5% White).

Of those with Parkinson’s disease, 4.3% had been prescribed an AED prior to the date of their being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, compared with 2.5% in the control group; 4.4% had been diagnosed with epilepsy, compared with 1% of the control persons.

The strongest evidence was for the association between lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and sodium valproate and Parkinson’s disease. There was “weaker evidence” for carbamazepine, although all the AEDs were associated with a higher risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Alternative explanations

Commenting on the research, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, said, “It has been established in prior research that there is an association between epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease.” The current study “shows that having had a prescription written for one of four antiepileptic medications was associated with subsequently receiving a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.”

Although one possible conclusion is that the AEDs themselves increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, “there seem to be other alternative explanations as to why a person who had been prescribed AEDs has an increased risk of receiving a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Gilbert, an associate professor of neurology at Bellevue Hospital Center, New York, who was not involved with the current study.

For example, pre-motor changes in the brain of persons with Parkinson’s disease “may increase the risk of requiring an AED by potentially increasing the risk of having a seizure,” and “changes in the brain caused by the seizures for which AEDs are prescribed may increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease.”

Moreover, psychiatric changes related to Parkinson’s disease may have led to the prescription for AEDs, because at least two of the AEDs are also prescribed for mood stabilization, Dr. Gilbert suggested.

“An unanswered question that the paper acknowledges is, what about people who receive AEDs for reasons other than seizures? Do they also have an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease? This would be an interesting population to focus on because it would remove the link between AEDs and seizure and focus on the association between AEDs and Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Gilbert said.

She emphasized that people who take AEDs for seizures “should not jump to the conclusion that they must come off these medications so as not to increase their risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.” She noted that having seizures “can be dangerous – injuries can occur during a seizure, and if a seizure can’t be stopped or a number occur in rapid succession, brain injury may result.”

For these reasons, people with “a tendency to have seizures need to protect themselves with AEDs” and “should certainly reach out to their neurologists with any questions,” Dr. Gilbert said.

The Preventive Neurology Unit is funded by Barts Charity. The Apocrita High Performance Cluster facility, supported by Queen Mary University London Research–IT Services, was used for this research. Dr. Noyce has received grants from Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Cure Parkinson’s, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, Innovate UK, Solvemed, and Alchemab and personal fees from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Zambon, BIAL, uMedeor, Alchemab, Britannia, and Charco Neurotech outside the submitted work. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Gilbert reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are linked to an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests.

Drawing on data from the UK Biobank, investigators compared more than 1,400 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease with matched control persons and found a considerably higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease among those who had taken AEDs in comparison with those who had not. There was a trend linking a greater number of AED prescriptions and multiple AEDs associated with a greater risk for Parkinson’s disease.

“We observed an association between the most commonly prescribed antiepileptic drugs in the U.K. and Parkinson’s disease using data from UK Biobank,” said senior author Alastair Noyce, PhD, professor of neurology and neuroepidemiology and honorary consultant neurologist, Queen Mary University of London.

“This is the first time that a comprehensive study of the link between AEDs and Parkinson’s disease has been undertaken,” said Dr. Noyce.

He added that the findings have no immediate clinical implications, “but further research is definitely needed, [as] this is an interesting observation made in a research setting.”

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Plausible, but unclear link

Recent observational studies have found a “temporal association” between epilepsy and incident Parkinson’s disease, but the mechanism underlying this association is “unclear,” the authors wrote.

It is “plausible” that AEDs “may account for some or all of the apparent association between epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease” and that movement disorders are potential side effects of AEDs, but the association between AEDs and Parkinson’s disease has “not been well studied,” so it remains “unclear” whether AEDs play a role in the association.

“We have previously reported an association between epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease in several different datasets. Here, we wanted to see if it could be explained by an association with the drugs used to treat epilepsy rather than epilepsy per se,” Dr. Noyce explained.
 

Are AEDs the culprit?

The researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a longitudinal cohort study with more than 500,000 participants, as well as linked primary care medication data to conduct a nested case-control study to investigate this potential association. Participants ranged in age from 40 to 69 years and were recruited between 2006 and 2010.

The researchers compared 1,433 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease with 8,598 control persons who were matched in a 6:1 ratio for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (median [interquartile range] age, 71 [65-75] years; 60.9% men; 97.5% White).

Of those with Parkinson’s disease, 4.3% had been prescribed an AED prior to the date of their being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, compared with 2.5% in the control group; 4.4% had been diagnosed with epilepsy, compared with 1% of the control persons.

The strongest evidence was for the association between lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and sodium valproate and Parkinson’s disease. There was “weaker evidence” for carbamazepine, although all the AEDs were associated with a higher risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Alternative explanations

Commenting on the research, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, said, “It has been established in prior research that there is an association between epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease.” The current study “shows that having had a prescription written for one of four antiepileptic medications was associated with subsequently receiving a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.”

Although one possible conclusion is that the AEDs themselves increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, “there seem to be other alternative explanations as to why a person who had been prescribed AEDs has an increased risk of receiving a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Gilbert, an associate professor of neurology at Bellevue Hospital Center, New York, who was not involved with the current study.

For example, pre-motor changes in the brain of persons with Parkinson’s disease “may increase the risk of requiring an AED by potentially increasing the risk of having a seizure,” and “changes in the brain caused by the seizures for which AEDs are prescribed may increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease.”

Moreover, psychiatric changes related to Parkinson’s disease may have led to the prescription for AEDs, because at least two of the AEDs are also prescribed for mood stabilization, Dr. Gilbert suggested.

“An unanswered question that the paper acknowledges is, what about people who receive AEDs for reasons other than seizures? Do they also have an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease? This would be an interesting population to focus on because it would remove the link between AEDs and seizure and focus on the association between AEDs and Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Gilbert said.

She emphasized that people who take AEDs for seizures “should not jump to the conclusion that they must come off these medications so as not to increase their risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.” She noted that having seizures “can be dangerous – injuries can occur during a seizure, and if a seizure can’t be stopped or a number occur in rapid succession, brain injury may result.”

For these reasons, people with “a tendency to have seizures need to protect themselves with AEDs” and “should certainly reach out to their neurologists with any questions,” Dr. Gilbert said.

The Preventive Neurology Unit is funded by Barts Charity. The Apocrita High Performance Cluster facility, supported by Queen Mary University London Research–IT Services, was used for this research. Dr. Noyce has received grants from Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Cure Parkinson’s, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, Innovate UK, Solvemed, and Alchemab and personal fees from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Zambon, BIAL, uMedeor, Alchemab, Britannia, and Charco Neurotech outside the submitted work. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Gilbert reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are linked to an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests.

Drawing on data from the UK Biobank, investigators compared more than 1,400 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease with matched control persons and found a considerably higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease among those who had taken AEDs in comparison with those who had not. There was a trend linking a greater number of AED prescriptions and multiple AEDs associated with a greater risk for Parkinson’s disease.

“We observed an association between the most commonly prescribed antiepileptic drugs in the U.K. and Parkinson’s disease using data from UK Biobank,” said senior author Alastair Noyce, PhD, professor of neurology and neuroepidemiology and honorary consultant neurologist, Queen Mary University of London.

“This is the first time that a comprehensive study of the link between AEDs and Parkinson’s disease has been undertaken,” said Dr. Noyce.

He added that the findings have no immediate clinical implications, “but further research is definitely needed, [as] this is an interesting observation made in a research setting.”

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Plausible, but unclear link

Recent observational studies have found a “temporal association” between epilepsy and incident Parkinson’s disease, but the mechanism underlying this association is “unclear,” the authors wrote.

It is “plausible” that AEDs “may account for some or all of the apparent association between epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease” and that movement disorders are potential side effects of AEDs, but the association between AEDs and Parkinson’s disease has “not been well studied,” so it remains “unclear” whether AEDs play a role in the association.

“We have previously reported an association between epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease in several different datasets. Here, we wanted to see if it could be explained by an association with the drugs used to treat epilepsy rather than epilepsy per se,” Dr. Noyce explained.
 

Are AEDs the culprit?

The researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a longitudinal cohort study with more than 500,000 participants, as well as linked primary care medication data to conduct a nested case-control study to investigate this potential association. Participants ranged in age from 40 to 69 years and were recruited between 2006 and 2010.

The researchers compared 1,433 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease with 8,598 control persons who were matched in a 6:1 ratio for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (median [interquartile range] age, 71 [65-75] years; 60.9% men; 97.5% White).

Of those with Parkinson’s disease, 4.3% had been prescribed an AED prior to the date of their being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, compared with 2.5% in the control group; 4.4% had been diagnosed with epilepsy, compared with 1% of the control persons.

The strongest evidence was for the association between lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and sodium valproate and Parkinson’s disease. There was “weaker evidence” for carbamazepine, although all the AEDs were associated with a higher risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Alternative explanations

Commenting on the research, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, said, “It has been established in prior research that there is an association between epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease.” The current study “shows that having had a prescription written for one of four antiepileptic medications was associated with subsequently receiving a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.”

Although one possible conclusion is that the AEDs themselves increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, “there seem to be other alternative explanations as to why a person who had been prescribed AEDs has an increased risk of receiving a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Gilbert, an associate professor of neurology at Bellevue Hospital Center, New York, who was not involved with the current study.

For example, pre-motor changes in the brain of persons with Parkinson’s disease “may increase the risk of requiring an AED by potentially increasing the risk of having a seizure,” and “changes in the brain caused by the seizures for which AEDs are prescribed may increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease.”

Moreover, psychiatric changes related to Parkinson’s disease may have led to the prescription for AEDs, because at least two of the AEDs are also prescribed for mood stabilization, Dr. Gilbert suggested.

“An unanswered question that the paper acknowledges is, what about people who receive AEDs for reasons other than seizures? Do they also have an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease? This would be an interesting population to focus on because it would remove the link between AEDs and seizure and focus on the association between AEDs and Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Gilbert said.

She emphasized that people who take AEDs for seizures “should not jump to the conclusion that they must come off these medications so as not to increase their risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.” She noted that having seizures “can be dangerous – injuries can occur during a seizure, and if a seizure can’t be stopped or a number occur in rapid succession, brain injury may result.”

For these reasons, people with “a tendency to have seizures need to protect themselves with AEDs” and “should certainly reach out to their neurologists with any questions,” Dr. Gilbert said.

The Preventive Neurology Unit is funded by Barts Charity. The Apocrita High Performance Cluster facility, supported by Queen Mary University London Research–IT Services, was used for this research. Dr. Noyce has received grants from Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Cure Parkinson’s, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, Innovate UK, Solvemed, and Alchemab and personal fees from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Zambon, BIAL, uMedeor, Alchemab, Britannia, and Charco Neurotech outside the submitted work. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Gilbert reports no relevant financial relationships.

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