Neurology Reviews

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at Arturo.ai.medtech@gmail.com or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at Arturo.ai.medtech@gmail.com or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at Arturo.ai.medtech@gmail.com or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

In last month’s column, I discussed employees who are “clock watchers” and how to address this issue in your practice if it exists. Here’s another scenario you may encounter from the Office Politics Forum at the recent American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting:

A 40-year-old dermatologist has practiced in the same office since residency and is loved by patients and staff. He remained with the practice through its takeover by a local hospital three years previously. Recently, over a 3-month period, everyone in the office notices a change in this dermatologist’s behavior. He no longer appears happy, is argumentative with staff and patients alike, often dismisses patients’ concerns, and calls in sick during the practice’s busiest days.

It is not difficult to recognize these changes as hallmarks of burnout, which continues to be pervasive across all practice settings and specialties. According to the American Medical Association’s National Burnout Benchmarking report, over 50% of physicians report some characteristics of burnout, which include emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a feeling of decreased personal achievement.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Addressing physician burnout requires a systems-based approach that targets these root causes at all levels, from individual coping strategies to organizational and systemic changes in the healthcare industry. Here are some strategies that have worked for me and others:

Optimize Practice Efficiency: This is the consistent theme of this column over several decades: Streamline office processes to enhance the quality of care while reducing unnecessary workload. This can involve adopting efficient patient scheduling systems, improving clinic flow, and utilizing technology like patient portals judiciously to avoid increasing the task load without compensation.

Promote Work-Life Balance: Encourage a culture that values work-life balance. This can include flexible scheduling, respecting off-duty hours by limiting non-emergency work communications, and using your vacation time. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”

Implement Medical Scribes: I’ve written frequently about this, including a recent column on the new artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, such as DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, ScribeLink, and Amazon Web Services’ new HealthScribe product. Utilizing medical scribes to handle documentation can significantly reduce the administrative burden, allowing physicians to focus more on patient care rather than paperwork, potentially improving both physician and patient satisfaction. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Provide Professional Development Opportunities: Offer opportunities for professional growth and development. This can include attending conferences, participating in research, or providing time and resources for continuing education. Such opportunities can reinvigorate a physician’s passion for medicine and improve job satisfaction.

Foster a Supportive Work Environment: Create a supportive work culture where staff and physicians feel comfortable discussing challenges and seeking support. Regular meetings or check-ins can help identify early signs of burnout and address them proactively.

Evaluate and Adjust Workloads: Regularly assess physician workloads to ensure they are manageable. Adjusting patient loads, redistributing tasks among team members, or hiring additional staff can help prevent burnout.

Leadership Training and Support: Provide training for leaders within the practice on recognizing signs of burnout and effective management strategies. Supportive leadership is crucial in creating an environment where physicians feel valued and heard.

Peer Support and Mentorship Programs: Establish peer support or mentorship programs where physicians can share experiences, offer advice, and provide emotional support to each other.

Feedback and Continuous Improvement: Managers should regularly solicit feedback from physicians regarding their workload, job satisfaction, and suggestions for improvements. Actively work on implementing feasible changes to address concerns.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In last month’s column, I discussed employees who are “clock watchers” and how to address this issue in your practice if it exists. Here’s another scenario you may encounter from the Office Politics Forum at the recent American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting:

A 40-year-old dermatologist has practiced in the same office since residency and is loved by patients and staff. He remained with the practice through its takeover by a local hospital three years previously. Recently, over a 3-month period, everyone in the office notices a change in this dermatologist’s behavior. He no longer appears happy, is argumentative with staff and patients alike, often dismisses patients’ concerns, and calls in sick during the practice’s busiest days.

It is not difficult to recognize these changes as hallmarks of burnout, which continues to be pervasive across all practice settings and specialties. According to the American Medical Association’s National Burnout Benchmarking report, over 50% of physicians report some characteristics of burnout, which include emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a feeling of decreased personal achievement.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Addressing physician burnout requires a systems-based approach that targets these root causes at all levels, from individual coping strategies to organizational and systemic changes in the healthcare industry. Here are some strategies that have worked for me and others:

Optimize Practice Efficiency: This is the consistent theme of this column over several decades: Streamline office processes to enhance the quality of care while reducing unnecessary workload. This can involve adopting efficient patient scheduling systems, improving clinic flow, and utilizing technology like patient portals judiciously to avoid increasing the task load without compensation.

Promote Work-Life Balance: Encourage a culture that values work-life balance. This can include flexible scheduling, respecting off-duty hours by limiting non-emergency work communications, and using your vacation time. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”

Implement Medical Scribes: I’ve written frequently about this, including a recent column on the new artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, such as DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, ScribeLink, and Amazon Web Services’ new HealthScribe product. Utilizing medical scribes to handle documentation can significantly reduce the administrative burden, allowing physicians to focus more on patient care rather than paperwork, potentially improving both physician and patient satisfaction. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Provide Professional Development Opportunities: Offer opportunities for professional growth and development. This can include attending conferences, participating in research, or providing time and resources for continuing education. Such opportunities can reinvigorate a physician’s passion for medicine and improve job satisfaction.

Foster a Supportive Work Environment: Create a supportive work culture where staff and physicians feel comfortable discussing challenges and seeking support. Regular meetings or check-ins can help identify early signs of burnout and address them proactively.

Evaluate and Adjust Workloads: Regularly assess physician workloads to ensure they are manageable. Adjusting patient loads, redistributing tasks among team members, or hiring additional staff can help prevent burnout.

Leadership Training and Support: Provide training for leaders within the practice on recognizing signs of burnout and effective management strategies. Supportive leadership is crucial in creating an environment where physicians feel valued and heard.

Peer Support and Mentorship Programs: Establish peer support or mentorship programs where physicians can share experiences, offer advice, and provide emotional support to each other.

Feedback and Continuous Improvement: Managers should regularly solicit feedback from physicians regarding their workload, job satisfaction, and suggestions for improvements. Actively work on implementing feasible changes to address concerns.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In last month’s column, I discussed employees who are “clock watchers” and how to address this issue in your practice if it exists. Here’s another scenario you may encounter from the Office Politics Forum at the recent American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting:

A 40-year-old dermatologist has practiced in the same office since residency and is loved by patients and staff. He remained with the practice through its takeover by a local hospital three years previously. Recently, over a 3-month period, everyone in the office notices a change in this dermatologist’s behavior. He no longer appears happy, is argumentative with staff and patients alike, often dismisses patients’ concerns, and calls in sick during the practice’s busiest days.

It is not difficult to recognize these changes as hallmarks of burnout, which continues to be pervasive across all practice settings and specialties. According to the American Medical Association’s National Burnout Benchmarking report, over 50% of physicians report some characteristics of burnout, which include emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a feeling of decreased personal achievement.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Addressing physician burnout requires a systems-based approach that targets these root causes at all levels, from individual coping strategies to organizational and systemic changes in the healthcare industry. Here are some strategies that have worked for me and others:

Optimize Practice Efficiency: This is the consistent theme of this column over several decades: Streamline office processes to enhance the quality of care while reducing unnecessary workload. This can involve adopting efficient patient scheduling systems, improving clinic flow, and utilizing technology like patient portals judiciously to avoid increasing the task load without compensation.

Promote Work-Life Balance: Encourage a culture that values work-life balance. This can include flexible scheduling, respecting off-duty hours by limiting non-emergency work communications, and using your vacation time. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”

Implement Medical Scribes: I’ve written frequently about this, including a recent column on the new artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, such as DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, ScribeLink, and Amazon Web Services’ new HealthScribe product. Utilizing medical scribes to handle documentation can significantly reduce the administrative burden, allowing physicians to focus more on patient care rather than paperwork, potentially improving both physician and patient satisfaction. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Provide Professional Development Opportunities: Offer opportunities for professional growth and development. This can include attending conferences, participating in research, or providing time and resources for continuing education. Such opportunities can reinvigorate a physician’s passion for medicine and improve job satisfaction.

Foster a Supportive Work Environment: Create a supportive work culture where staff and physicians feel comfortable discussing challenges and seeking support. Regular meetings or check-ins can help identify early signs of burnout and address them proactively.

Evaluate and Adjust Workloads: Regularly assess physician workloads to ensure they are manageable. Adjusting patient loads, redistributing tasks among team members, or hiring additional staff can help prevent burnout.

Leadership Training and Support: Provide training for leaders within the practice on recognizing signs of burnout and effective management strategies. Supportive leadership is crucial in creating an environment where physicians feel valued and heard.

Peer Support and Mentorship Programs: Establish peer support or mentorship programs where physicians can share experiences, offer advice, and provide emotional support to each other.

Feedback and Continuous Improvement: Managers should regularly solicit feedback from physicians regarding their workload, job satisfaction, and suggestions for improvements. Actively work on implementing feasible changes to address concerns.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

DENVER — Lidocaine injections into the greater occipital nerve relieve severe, refractory migraine attacks in children, results of a randomized controlled trial show. 

Investigators found children receiving bilateral occipital nerve blocks with 2% lidocaine had significantly greater pain relief than that of peers receiving saline injections. 

Cases series have shown a benefit of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) — injections of local anesthetics over branches of the occipital or trigeminal nerve — for severe, refractory headache in children.  

Although 80% of pediatric headache specialists use PNBs, there is “inconsistent insurance coverage” for this treatment, which had not been tested in a randomized controlled trial in children before now, lead investigator Christina Szperka, MD, with the Pediatric Headache Program, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told delegates attending the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Significant Results

Investigators enrolled 58 children and adolescents with acute status migrainosus. The mean age was 16 years, and reported gender was female for 44 participants, male for 11 participants, and nonbinary or transgender in 3 participants. Participants had a migraine flare duration of 22 days and had not responded to other treatments. 

All participants had topical lidocaine cream applied for 30 minutes as a run-in step and could decline injections if they experienced sufficient benefit from cream alone. 

“We used a lidocaine cream lead-in for two reasons. One was to try to see if we could address the issue of high placebo response in pediatric trials in particular, and also to see if we could help with blinding to injection,” said Dr. Szperka. 

Topical lidocaine cream led to a small decrease in pain score overall (0.2 point on a 0-10 scale), and all participants proceeded to randomized blinded bilateral greater occipital nerve injection with 2% lidocaine or saline, she reported. 

On the primary endpoint — change in pain score at 30 minutes — lidocaine was significantly more effective than saline, achieving a 2.3-point decrease on average (on a 0-10 scale) vs a 1.1-point decrease with saline (P = .01).

A 2-point pain reduction was achieved in 69% of patients in the lidocaine group versus 34% in the saline group.

Three quarters (76%) of patients getting lidocaine reported at least partial relief in severity or location of pain compared with 48% of those getting saline (P = .03). Rates of pain freedom at 30 minutes were 17% and 7%, respectively, and at 24 hours were 14% and 0%, respectively.

The majority of adverse events were mild and fairly equal across groups and included anxiety, worsening headache, injection site pain, dizziness, and numbness (more so with lidocaine). There was one case of anaphylaxis after lidocaine injection.

Quite unexpectedly, said Dr. Szperka, patients rated the saline injection as more painful than the lidocaine injection. “This was not what I expected going in, and I think is relevant for future trials,” she said.
 

Encouraging Results 

Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, said that as a neurologist and pain physician, he sees firsthand the “devastating impact of status migrainosus on children.”

“These debilitating headaches can rob them of precious school days, hindering learning and social interaction,” said Dr. Lakhan. “The constant pain and fear of the next attack can also take a toll on their emotional well-being.”

The impact on families is significant as well, highlighting the need to find more effective treatments, Dr. Lakhan said. 

“Traditionally, we’ve relied on case studies to see the benefits of nerve blocks for migraine in younger patients. This is the first randomized controlled trial that shows lidocaine injections can be significantly more effective than a placebo for these unrelenting migraines,” he said.

“It’s important to note that this is a relatively small study, and not without safety concerns, including rare but potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis to lidocaine,” Dr. Lakhan added. “More research is needed, but these findings are encouraging. Lidocaine injections could become a valuable tool for managing treatment-resistant migraines in adolescents and young adults.”

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Szperka is a consultant for AbbVie and Teva; serves on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith; and is a site principal investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Lakhan had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Lidocaine injections into the greater occipital nerve relieve severe, refractory migraine attacks in children, results of a randomized controlled trial show. 

Investigators found children receiving bilateral occipital nerve blocks with 2% lidocaine had significantly greater pain relief than that of peers receiving saline injections. 

Cases series have shown a benefit of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) — injections of local anesthetics over branches of the occipital or trigeminal nerve — for severe, refractory headache in children.  

Although 80% of pediatric headache specialists use PNBs, there is “inconsistent insurance coverage” for this treatment, which had not been tested in a randomized controlled trial in children before now, lead investigator Christina Szperka, MD, with the Pediatric Headache Program, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told delegates attending the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Significant Results

Investigators enrolled 58 children and adolescents with acute status migrainosus. The mean age was 16 years, and reported gender was female for 44 participants, male for 11 participants, and nonbinary or transgender in 3 participants. Participants had a migraine flare duration of 22 days and had not responded to other treatments. 

All participants had topical lidocaine cream applied for 30 minutes as a run-in step and could decline injections if they experienced sufficient benefit from cream alone. 

“We used a lidocaine cream lead-in for two reasons. One was to try to see if we could address the issue of high placebo response in pediatric trials in particular, and also to see if we could help with blinding to injection,” said Dr. Szperka. 

Topical lidocaine cream led to a small decrease in pain score overall (0.2 point on a 0-10 scale), and all participants proceeded to randomized blinded bilateral greater occipital nerve injection with 2% lidocaine or saline, she reported. 

On the primary endpoint — change in pain score at 30 minutes — lidocaine was significantly more effective than saline, achieving a 2.3-point decrease on average (on a 0-10 scale) vs a 1.1-point decrease with saline (P = .01).

A 2-point pain reduction was achieved in 69% of patients in the lidocaine group versus 34% in the saline group.

Three quarters (76%) of patients getting lidocaine reported at least partial relief in severity or location of pain compared with 48% of those getting saline (P = .03). Rates of pain freedom at 30 minutes were 17% and 7%, respectively, and at 24 hours were 14% and 0%, respectively.

The majority of adverse events were mild and fairly equal across groups and included anxiety, worsening headache, injection site pain, dizziness, and numbness (more so with lidocaine). There was one case of anaphylaxis after lidocaine injection.

Quite unexpectedly, said Dr. Szperka, patients rated the saline injection as more painful than the lidocaine injection. “This was not what I expected going in, and I think is relevant for future trials,” she said.
 

Encouraging Results 

Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, said that as a neurologist and pain physician, he sees firsthand the “devastating impact of status migrainosus on children.”

“These debilitating headaches can rob them of precious school days, hindering learning and social interaction,” said Dr. Lakhan. “The constant pain and fear of the next attack can also take a toll on their emotional well-being.”

The impact on families is significant as well, highlighting the need to find more effective treatments, Dr. Lakhan said. 

“Traditionally, we’ve relied on case studies to see the benefits of nerve blocks for migraine in younger patients. This is the first randomized controlled trial that shows lidocaine injections can be significantly more effective than a placebo for these unrelenting migraines,” he said.

“It’s important to note that this is a relatively small study, and not without safety concerns, including rare but potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis to lidocaine,” Dr. Lakhan added. “More research is needed, but these findings are encouraging. Lidocaine injections could become a valuable tool for managing treatment-resistant migraines in adolescents and young adults.”

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Szperka is a consultant for AbbVie and Teva; serves on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith; and is a site principal investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Lakhan had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Lidocaine injections into the greater occipital nerve relieve severe, refractory migraine attacks in children, results of a randomized controlled trial show. 

Investigators found children receiving bilateral occipital nerve blocks with 2% lidocaine had significantly greater pain relief than that of peers receiving saline injections. 

Cases series have shown a benefit of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) — injections of local anesthetics over branches of the occipital or trigeminal nerve — for severe, refractory headache in children.  

Although 80% of pediatric headache specialists use PNBs, there is “inconsistent insurance coverage” for this treatment, which had not been tested in a randomized controlled trial in children before now, lead investigator Christina Szperka, MD, with the Pediatric Headache Program, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told delegates attending the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Significant Results

Investigators enrolled 58 children and adolescents with acute status migrainosus. The mean age was 16 years, and reported gender was female for 44 participants, male for 11 participants, and nonbinary or transgender in 3 participants. Participants had a migraine flare duration of 22 days and had not responded to other treatments. 

All participants had topical lidocaine cream applied for 30 minutes as a run-in step and could decline injections if they experienced sufficient benefit from cream alone. 

“We used a lidocaine cream lead-in for two reasons. One was to try to see if we could address the issue of high placebo response in pediatric trials in particular, and also to see if we could help with blinding to injection,” said Dr. Szperka. 

Topical lidocaine cream led to a small decrease in pain score overall (0.2 point on a 0-10 scale), and all participants proceeded to randomized blinded bilateral greater occipital nerve injection with 2% lidocaine or saline, she reported. 

On the primary endpoint — change in pain score at 30 minutes — lidocaine was significantly more effective than saline, achieving a 2.3-point decrease on average (on a 0-10 scale) vs a 1.1-point decrease with saline (P = .01).

A 2-point pain reduction was achieved in 69% of patients in the lidocaine group versus 34% in the saline group.

Three quarters (76%) of patients getting lidocaine reported at least partial relief in severity or location of pain compared with 48% of those getting saline (P = .03). Rates of pain freedom at 30 minutes were 17% and 7%, respectively, and at 24 hours were 14% and 0%, respectively.

The majority of adverse events were mild and fairly equal across groups and included anxiety, worsening headache, injection site pain, dizziness, and numbness (more so with lidocaine). There was one case of anaphylaxis after lidocaine injection.

Quite unexpectedly, said Dr. Szperka, patients rated the saline injection as more painful than the lidocaine injection. “This was not what I expected going in, and I think is relevant for future trials,” she said.
 

Encouraging Results 

Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, said that as a neurologist and pain physician, he sees firsthand the “devastating impact of status migrainosus on children.”

“These debilitating headaches can rob them of precious school days, hindering learning and social interaction,” said Dr. Lakhan. “The constant pain and fear of the next attack can also take a toll on their emotional well-being.”

The impact on families is significant as well, highlighting the need to find more effective treatments, Dr. Lakhan said. 

“Traditionally, we’ve relied on case studies to see the benefits of nerve blocks for migraine in younger patients. This is the first randomized controlled trial that shows lidocaine injections can be significantly more effective than a placebo for these unrelenting migraines,” he said.

“It’s important to note that this is a relatively small study, and not without safety concerns, including rare but potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis to lidocaine,” Dr. Lakhan added. “More research is needed, but these findings are encouraging. Lidocaine injections could become a valuable tool for managing treatment-resistant migraines in adolescents and young adults.”

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Szperka is a consultant for AbbVie and Teva; serves on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith; and is a site principal investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Lakhan had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — A new test to detect pathogens related to meningitis, encephalitis, and other neurologic infections is more sensitive than are conventional diagnostics and could vastly improve diagnostic capabilities in the clinic, results of a real-world analysis show.

Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) of RNA and DNA from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) simultaneously tests for a wide range of infectious agents and identifies individual pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites. About half of patients with a suspected central nervous system (CNS) infection may go undiagnosed due to a lack of tools that detect rare pathogens. Although mNGS is currently available only in specialized laboratories, expanding access to the diagnostic could address this problem, investigators noted. 

“Our results justify incorporation of CSF mNGS testing as part of the routine diagnostic workup in hospitalized patients who present with potential central nervous system infections,” study investigator Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine as well as Medicine and Department of Medicine – Infectious Diseases and director of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, University of California San Fransisco (UCSF), said at a press conference.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
 

‘Real-World’ Performance

Accurate diagnosis of CNS infections on the basis of CSF, imaging, patient history, and presentation is challenging, the researchers noted. “Roughly 50% of patients who present with a presumed central nervous system infection actually end up without a diagnosis,” Dr. Chiu said.

This is due to the lack of diagnostic tests for rare pathogens and because noninfectious conditions like cancer, autoantibody syndrome, or vasculitis can mimic an infection, he added.

CSF is “very limiting,” Dr. Chiu noted. “We are unable, practically, from a volume perspective, as well as a cost and turnaround time perspective, to be able to send off every possible test for every possible organism.” 

The inability to rapidly pinpoint the cause of an infectious disease like meningitis or encephalitis can cause delays in appropriate treatment.

To assess the “real-world” performance of mNGS, researchers collected 4828 samples from mainly hospitalized patients across the United States and elsewhere from 2016 to 2023. 

Overall, the test detected at least one pathogen in 16.6% of cases. More than 70% were DNA or RNA viruses, followed by bacteria, fungi, and parasites. 
 

High Sensitivity

The technology was also able to detect novel or emerging neurotropic pathogens, including a yellow fever virus responsible for a transfusion-transmitted encephalitis outbreak and Fusarium solani, which caused a fungal meningitis outbreak.

Investigators also conducted a chart review on a subset of 1052 patients at UCSF to compare the performance of CSF nMGS testing with commonly used in-hospital diagnostic tests.

“We showed that as a single test, spinal fluid mNGS has an overall sensitivity of 63%, specificity of 99%, and accuracy of 90%,” said Dr. Chiu.

The sensitivity of mNGS was significantly higher compared with direct-detection testing from CSF (46%); direct-detection testing performed on samples other than CSF, such as blood (15%); and indirect serologic testing looking for antibodies (29%) (P < .001 for all). 

This suggests that mNGS could potentially “detect the hundreds of different pathogens that cause clinically indistinguishable infections,” Dr. Chui said.

mNGS testing is currently confined to large specialized or reference laboratories. For greater access to the test, routine clinical labs or hospital labs would have to implement it, said Dr. Chiu.

“If you can bring the technology to the point of care, directly to the hospital lab that’s running the test, we can produce results that would have a more rapid impact on patients,” he said.
 

Guiding Therapy

Ultimately, he added, the purpose of a diagnostic test is to “generate actionable information that could potentially guide therapy.”

Researchers are now evaluating medical charts of the same subcohort of patients to determine whether the test made a clinical difference.

“We want to know if it had a positive or negative or no clinical impact on the management and treatment of patients,” said Dr. Chiu. “Producing data like this will help us define the role of this test in the future as part of the diagnostic paradigm.”

The researchers are also working on a cost/benefit analysis, and Dr. Chiu said that US Food and Drug Administration approval of the test is needed “to establish a blueprint for reimbursement.”

Commenting on the findings, Jessica Robinson-Papp, MD, professor and vice chair of clinical research, Department of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, said that the technology could be useful, especially in developing countries with higher rates of CNS infections. 

“What’s really exciting about it is you can take a very small CSF sample, like 1 mL, and in an unbiased way just screen for all different kinds of pathogens including both DNA and RNA viruses, parasites, bacteria, and fungi, and sort of come up with whether there’s a pathogen there or whether there is no pathogen there,” she said.

However, there’s a chance that this sensitive technique will pick up contaminants, she added. “For example, if there’s a little environmental bacterium either on the skin or in the water used for processing, it can get reads on that.”

The study received support from Delve Bio and the Chan-Zuckerberg Biohub.

Dr. Chiu has received personal compensation for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring Board for Biomeme and has stock in Delve Bio, Poppy Health, Mammoth Biosciences, and BiomeSense and has received intellectual property interests from a discovery or technology relating to healthcare. Dr. Robinson-Papp has no relevant conflicts of interest. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — A new test to detect pathogens related to meningitis, encephalitis, and other neurologic infections is more sensitive than are conventional diagnostics and could vastly improve diagnostic capabilities in the clinic, results of a real-world analysis show.

Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) of RNA and DNA from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) simultaneously tests for a wide range of infectious agents and identifies individual pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites. About half of patients with a suspected central nervous system (CNS) infection may go undiagnosed due to a lack of tools that detect rare pathogens. Although mNGS is currently available only in specialized laboratories, expanding access to the diagnostic could address this problem, investigators noted. 

“Our results justify incorporation of CSF mNGS testing as part of the routine diagnostic workup in hospitalized patients who present with potential central nervous system infections,” study investigator Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine as well as Medicine and Department of Medicine – Infectious Diseases and director of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, University of California San Fransisco (UCSF), said at a press conference.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
 

‘Real-World’ Performance

Accurate diagnosis of CNS infections on the basis of CSF, imaging, patient history, and presentation is challenging, the researchers noted. “Roughly 50% of patients who present with a presumed central nervous system infection actually end up without a diagnosis,” Dr. Chiu said.

This is due to the lack of diagnostic tests for rare pathogens and because noninfectious conditions like cancer, autoantibody syndrome, or vasculitis can mimic an infection, he added.

CSF is “very limiting,” Dr. Chiu noted. “We are unable, practically, from a volume perspective, as well as a cost and turnaround time perspective, to be able to send off every possible test for every possible organism.” 

The inability to rapidly pinpoint the cause of an infectious disease like meningitis or encephalitis can cause delays in appropriate treatment.

To assess the “real-world” performance of mNGS, researchers collected 4828 samples from mainly hospitalized patients across the United States and elsewhere from 2016 to 2023. 

Overall, the test detected at least one pathogen in 16.6% of cases. More than 70% were DNA or RNA viruses, followed by bacteria, fungi, and parasites. 
 

High Sensitivity

The technology was also able to detect novel or emerging neurotropic pathogens, including a yellow fever virus responsible for a transfusion-transmitted encephalitis outbreak and Fusarium solani, which caused a fungal meningitis outbreak.

Investigators also conducted a chart review on a subset of 1052 patients at UCSF to compare the performance of CSF nMGS testing with commonly used in-hospital diagnostic tests.

“We showed that as a single test, spinal fluid mNGS has an overall sensitivity of 63%, specificity of 99%, and accuracy of 90%,” said Dr. Chiu.

The sensitivity of mNGS was significantly higher compared with direct-detection testing from CSF (46%); direct-detection testing performed on samples other than CSF, such as blood (15%); and indirect serologic testing looking for antibodies (29%) (P < .001 for all). 

This suggests that mNGS could potentially “detect the hundreds of different pathogens that cause clinically indistinguishable infections,” Dr. Chui said.

mNGS testing is currently confined to large specialized or reference laboratories. For greater access to the test, routine clinical labs or hospital labs would have to implement it, said Dr. Chiu.

“If you can bring the technology to the point of care, directly to the hospital lab that’s running the test, we can produce results that would have a more rapid impact on patients,” he said.
 

Guiding Therapy

Ultimately, he added, the purpose of a diagnostic test is to “generate actionable information that could potentially guide therapy.”

Researchers are now evaluating medical charts of the same subcohort of patients to determine whether the test made a clinical difference.

“We want to know if it had a positive or negative or no clinical impact on the management and treatment of patients,” said Dr. Chiu. “Producing data like this will help us define the role of this test in the future as part of the diagnostic paradigm.”

The researchers are also working on a cost/benefit analysis, and Dr. Chiu said that US Food and Drug Administration approval of the test is needed “to establish a blueprint for reimbursement.”

Commenting on the findings, Jessica Robinson-Papp, MD, professor and vice chair of clinical research, Department of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, said that the technology could be useful, especially in developing countries with higher rates of CNS infections. 

“What’s really exciting about it is you can take a very small CSF sample, like 1 mL, and in an unbiased way just screen for all different kinds of pathogens including both DNA and RNA viruses, parasites, bacteria, and fungi, and sort of come up with whether there’s a pathogen there or whether there is no pathogen there,” she said.

However, there’s a chance that this sensitive technique will pick up contaminants, she added. “For example, if there’s a little environmental bacterium either on the skin or in the water used for processing, it can get reads on that.”

The study received support from Delve Bio and the Chan-Zuckerberg Biohub.

Dr. Chiu has received personal compensation for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring Board for Biomeme and has stock in Delve Bio, Poppy Health, Mammoth Biosciences, and BiomeSense and has received intellectual property interests from a discovery or technology relating to healthcare. Dr. Robinson-Papp has no relevant conflicts of interest. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — A new test to detect pathogens related to meningitis, encephalitis, and other neurologic infections is more sensitive than are conventional diagnostics and could vastly improve diagnostic capabilities in the clinic, results of a real-world analysis show.

Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) of RNA and DNA from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) simultaneously tests for a wide range of infectious agents and identifies individual pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites. About half of patients with a suspected central nervous system (CNS) infection may go undiagnosed due to a lack of tools that detect rare pathogens. Although mNGS is currently available only in specialized laboratories, expanding access to the diagnostic could address this problem, investigators noted. 

“Our results justify incorporation of CSF mNGS testing as part of the routine diagnostic workup in hospitalized patients who present with potential central nervous system infections,” study investigator Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine as well as Medicine and Department of Medicine – Infectious Diseases and director of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, University of California San Fransisco (UCSF), said at a press conference.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
 

‘Real-World’ Performance

Accurate diagnosis of CNS infections on the basis of CSF, imaging, patient history, and presentation is challenging, the researchers noted. “Roughly 50% of patients who present with a presumed central nervous system infection actually end up without a diagnosis,” Dr. Chiu said.

This is due to the lack of diagnostic tests for rare pathogens and because noninfectious conditions like cancer, autoantibody syndrome, or vasculitis can mimic an infection, he added.

CSF is “very limiting,” Dr. Chiu noted. “We are unable, practically, from a volume perspective, as well as a cost and turnaround time perspective, to be able to send off every possible test for every possible organism.” 

The inability to rapidly pinpoint the cause of an infectious disease like meningitis or encephalitis can cause delays in appropriate treatment.

To assess the “real-world” performance of mNGS, researchers collected 4828 samples from mainly hospitalized patients across the United States and elsewhere from 2016 to 2023. 

Overall, the test detected at least one pathogen in 16.6% of cases. More than 70% were DNA or RNA viruses, followed by bacteria, fungi, and parasites. 
 

High Sensitivity

The technology was also able to detect novel or emerging neurotropic pathogens, including a yellow fever virus responsible for a transfusion-transmitted encephalitis outbreak and Fusarium solani, which caused a fungal meningitis outbreak.

Investigators also conducted a chart review on a subset of 1052 patients at UCSF to compare the performance of CSF nMGS testing with commonly used in-hospital diagnostic tests.

“We showed that as a single test, spinal fluid mNGS has an overall sensitivity of 63%, specificity of 99%, and accuracy of 90%,” said Dr. Chiu.

The sensitivity of mNGS was significantly higher compared with direct-detection testing from CSF (46%); direct-detection testing performed on samples other than CSF, such as blood (15%); and indirect serologic testing looking for antibodies (29%) (P < .001 for all). 

This suggests that mNGS could potentially “detect the hundreds of different pathogens that cause clinically indistinguishable infections,” Dr. Chui said.

mNGS testing is currently confined to large specialized or reference laboratories. For greater access to the test, routine clinical labs or hospital labs would have to implement it, said Dr. Chiu.

“If you can bring the technology to the point of care, directly to the hospital lab that’s running the test, we can produce results that would have a more rapid impact on patients,” he said.
 

Guiding Therapy

Ultimately, he added, the purpose of a diagnostic test is to “generate actionable information that could potentially guide therapy.”

Researchers are now evaluating medical charts of the same subcohort of patients to determine whether the test made a clinical difference.

“We want to know if it had a positive or negative or no clinical impact on the management and treatment of patients,” said Dr. Chiu. “Producing data like this will help us define the role of this test in the future as part of the diagnostic paradigm.”

The researchers are also working on a cost/benefit analysis, and Dr. Chiu said that US Food and Drug Administration approval of the test is needed “to establish a blueprint for reimbursement.”

Commenting on the findings, Jessica Robinson-Papp, MD, professor and vice chair of clinical research, Department of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, said that the technology could be useful, especially in developing countries with higher rates of CNS infections. 

“What’s really exciting about it is you can take a very small CSF sample, like 1 mL, and in an unbiased way just screen for all different kinds of pathogens including both DNA and RNA viruses, parasites, bacteria, and fungi, and sort of come up with whether there’s a pathogen there or whether there is no pathogen there,” she said.

However, there’s a chance that this sensitive technique will pick up contaminants, she added. “For example, if there’s a little environmental bacterium either on the skin or in the water used for processing, it can get reads on that.”

The study received support from Delve Bio and the Chan-Zuckerberg Biohub.

Dr. Chiu has received personal compensation for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring Board for Biomeme and has stock in Delve Bio, Poppy Health, Mammoth Biosciences, and BiomeSense and has received intellectual property interests from a discovery or technology relating to healthcare. Dr. Robinson-Papp has no relevant conflicts of interest. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.