User login
Neurology Reviews covers innovative and emerging news in neurology and neuroscience every month, with a focus on practical approaches to treating Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, headache, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and other neurologic disorders.
PML
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Rituxan
The leading independent newspaper covering neurology news and commentary.
Vaporized Cannabis for Acute Migraine Yields Rapid, Sustained Relief
DENVER — , new research suggests.
“In this single-center randomized controlled trial across 247 treated migraine attacks, four puffs of vaporized THC-CBD mix were efficacious for acute migraine treatment,” said study investigator Nathaniel Marc Schuster, MD, with University of California San Diego Center for Pain Medicine.
The superiority of THC-CBD over placebo was “unlikely explained by unmasking given that in our blinding analysis most patients who got THC actually did not think they got some THC,” Dr. Schuster said.
He presented the results at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Sustained Pain Relief
Preclinical and retrospective studies point to antimigraine effects of cannabinoids, yet strong evidence of efficacy from a randomized controlled trial has been lacking.
The researchers tested the efficacy of cannabis for acute migraine in what they report is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of adults with migraine.
Participants treated up to four separate moderate to severe migraine attacks, each with one of four different treatments. The four treatments were: 6% THC, 11% CBD, a mix of 6% THC and 11% CBD, or placebo flower from the National Institute on Drug Abuse that has a similar taste and smell to the other products.
The four treatments were vaporized in a randomized order, with at least 1 week washout between treatments. The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 hours from vaporization. Secondary endpoints were freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours from vaporization.
Of the 92 enrolled patients (mean age 41 years, 83% women), 19 treated zero migraine attacks thus leaving 73 patients who treated a total of 247 migraine attacks over the 1-year study.
The THC-CBD mix was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%; P = .016), pain freedom (34.5% vs 15.5%; P = .017), and MBS freedom (60.3% vs 34.5%; P = .005) at 2 hours.
The THC-CBD mix was also superior to placebo for sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours.
There were no serious adverse events. The THC-CBD mix was better tolerated than THC-only was, with lower rates of euphoria and cognitive impairment and lower subjective highness, Dr. Schuster said.
Adverse events were more common with THC only (vs THC-CBD) “and this is really expected because CBD is known to bring down the side effects of THC,” Dr. Schuster noted.
Summing up his presentation, Dr. Schuster said, “This is one single-center study, and, of course, we need more data. We need to study the rates of medication overuse headache and the rates of cannabis use disorder that may develop with the use of cannabis for migraine.”
Cautious Optimism
Reached for comment, Hsiangkuo (Scott) Yuan, MD, PhD, Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, and director of clinical research, Jefferson Headache Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, noted that the “statistically significant” differences between THC-CBD versus placebo on 2-hour pain relief, pain freedom and MBS freedom are “certainly very exciting, especially when no serious adverse event was reported.”
“Since THC has a narrow therapeutic window for analgesia (too high causes psychoactive side effects and may even worsen the pain), its dosing needs to be carefully controlled. The study was wisely designed to ensure uniform dosing from the vaporizer, which is usually safer than smoking or a vape pen and has a quicker onset than ingestion for acute usage,” said Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the study.
“However, the optimal THC-CBD ratio and potency (percent THC) for acute migraine remain to be studied. Perhaps there is an individualized dose that can be obtained by titration. We also don’t know if the effect changes after repeated use,” Dr. Yuan cautioned.
He also noted that cannabis use was associated with medication overuse headache in a retrospective study, “although the causality remains to be determined.”
“While there was no serious adverse event, it is not completely risk-free, especially when cannabis is used repeatedly for a short duration. Since the physician does not have direct control over what happens at the dispensary, we need to counsel our patients more carefully when recommending cannabis/cannabinoids,” Dr. Yuan said.
Overall, he said he is “cautiously optimistic about cannabis use for acute migraine.”
This was an investigator-initiated study, with no commercial funding. Dr. Schuster has disclosed relationships with Schedule 1 Therapeutics, Averitas, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, ShiraTronics, and Syneos. In the past 24 months, Dr. Yuan has served as a site investigator for Teva, AbbVie, Ipsen, Parema; received advisory/consultant fees from Salvia, Pfizer, AbbVie, Cerenovus; and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER — , new research suggests.
“In this single-center randomized controlled trial across 247 treated migraine attacks, four puffs of vaporized THC-CBD mix were efficacious for acute migraine treatment,” said study investigator Nathaniel Marc Schuster, MD, with University of California San Diego Center for Pain Medicine.
The superiority of THC-CBD over placebo was “unlikely explained by unmasking given that in our blinding analysis most patients who got THC actually did not think they got some THC,” Dr. Schuster said.
He presented the results at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Sustained Pain Relief
Preclinical and retrospective studies point to antimigraine effects of cannabinoids, yet strong evidence of efficacy from a randomized controlled trial has been lacking.
The researchers tested the efficacy of cannabis for acute migraine in what they report is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of adults with migraine.
Participants treated up to four separate moderate to severe migraine attacks, each with one of four different treatments. The four treatments were: 6% THC, 11% CBD, a mix of 6% THC and 11% CBD, or placebo flower from the National Institute on Drug Abuse that has a similar taste and smell to the other products.
The four treatments were vaporized in a randomized order, with at least 1 week washout between treatments. The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 hours from vaporization. Secondary endpoints were freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours from vaporization.
Of the 92 enrolled patients (mean age 41 years, 83% women), 19 treated zero migraine attacks thus leaving 73 patients who treated a total of 247 migraine attacks over the 1-year study.
The THC-CBD mix was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%; P = .016), pain freedom (34.5% vs 15.5%; P = .017), and MBS freedom (60.3% vs 34.5%; P = .005) at 2 hours.
The THC-CBD mix was also superior to placebo for sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours.
There were no serious adverse events. The THC-CBD mix was better tolerated than THC-only was, with lower rates of euphoria and cognitive impairment and lower subjective highness, Dr. Schuster said.
Adverse events were more common with THC only (vs THC-CBD) “and this is really expected because CBD is known to bring down the side effects of THC,” Dr. Schuster noted.
Summing up his presentation, Dr. Schuster said, “This is one single-center study, and, of course, we need more data. We need to study the rates of medication overuse headache and the rates of cannabis use disorder that may develop with the use of cannabis for migraine.”
Cautious Optimism
Reached for comment, Hsiangkuo (Scott) Yuan, MD, PhD, Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, and director of clinical research, Jefferson Headache Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, noted that the “statistically significant” differences between THC-CBD versus placebo on 2-hour pain relief, pain freedom and MBS freedom are “certainly very exciting, especially when no serious adverse event was reported.”
“Since THC has a narrow therapeutic window for analgesia (too high causes psychoactive side effects and may even worsen the pain), its dosing needs to be carefully controlled. The study was wisely designed to ensure uniform dosing from the vaporizer, which is usually safer than smoking or a vape pen and has a quicker onset than ingestion for acute usage,” said Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the study.
“However, the optimal THC-CBD ratio and potency (percent THC) for acute migraine remain to be studied. Perhaps there is an individualized dose that can be obtained by titration. We also don’t know if the effect changes after repeated use,” Dr. Yuan cautioned.
He also noted that cannabis use was associated with medication overuse headache in a retrospective study, “although the causality remains to be determined.”
“While there was no serious adverse event, it is not completely risk-free, especially when cannabis is used repeatedly for a short duration. Since the physician does not have direct control over what happens at the dispensary, we need to counsel our patients more carefully when recommending cannabis/cannabinoids,” Dr. Yuan said.
Overall, he said he is “cautiously optimistic about cannabis use for acute migraine.”
This was an investigator-initiated study, with no commercial funding. Dr. Schuster has disclosed relationships with Schedule 1 Therapeutics, Averitas, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, ShiraTronics, and Syneos. In the past 24 months, Dr. Yuan has served as a site investigator for Teva, AbbVie, Ipsen, Parema; received advisory/consultant fees from Salvia, Pfizer, AbbVie, Cerenovus; and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER — , new research suggests.
“In this single-center randomized controlled trial across 247 treated migraine attacks, four puffs of vaporized THC-CBD mix were efficacious for acute migraine treatment,” said study investigator Nathaniel Marc Schuster, MD, with University of California San Diego Center for Pain Medicine.
The superiority of THC-CBD over placebo was “unlikely explained by unmasking given that in our blinding analysis most patients who got THC actually did not think they got some THC,” Dr. Schuster said.
He presented the results at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Sustained Pain Relief
Preclinical and retrospective studies point to antimigraine effects of cannabinoids, yet strong evidence of efficacy from a randomized controlled trial has been lacking.
The researchers tested the efficacy of cannabis for acute migraine in what they report is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of adults with migraine.
Participants treated up to four separate moderate to severe migraine attacks, each with one of four different treatments. The four treatments were: 6% THC, 11% CBD, a mix of 6% THC and 11% CBD, or placebo flower from the National Institute on Drug Abuse that has a similar taste and smell to the other products.
The four treatments were vaporized in a randomized order, with at least 1 week washout between treatments. The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 hours from vaporization. Secondary endpoints were freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours from vaporization.
Of the 92 enrolled patients (mean age 41 years, 83% women), 19 treated zero migraine attacks thus leaving 73 patients who treated a total of 247 migraine attacks over the 1-year study.
The THC-CBD mix was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%; P = .016), pain freedom (34.5% vs 15.5%; P = .017), and MBS freedom (60.3% vs 34.5%; P = .005) at 2 hours.
The THC-CBD mix was also superior to placebo for sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours.
There were no serious adverse events. The THC-CBD mix was better tolerated than THC-only was, with lower rates of euphoria and cognitive impairment and lower subjective highness, Dr. Schuster said.
Adverse events were more common with THC only (vs THC-CBD) “and this is really expected because CBD is known to bring down the side effects of THC,” Dr. Schuster noted.
Summing up his presentation, Dr. Schuster said, “This is one single-center study, and, of course, we need more data. We need to study the rates of medication overuse headache and the rates of cannabis use disorder that may develop with the use of cannabis for migraine.”
Cautious Optimism
Reached for comment, Hsiangkuo (Scott) Yuan, MD, PhD, Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, and director of clinical research, Jefferson Headache Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, noted that the “statistically significant” differences between THC-CBD versus placebo on 2-hour pain relief, pain freedom and MBS freedom are “certainly very exciting, especially when no serious adverse event was reported.”
“Since THC has a narrow therapeutic window for analgesia (too high causes psychoactive side effects and may even worsen the pain), its dosing needs to be carefully controlled. The study was wisely designed to ensure uniform dosing from the vaporizer, which is usually safer than smoking or a vape pen and has a quicker onset than ingestion for acute usage,” said Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the study.
“However, the optimal THC-CBD ratio and potency (percent THC) for acute migraine remain to be studied. Perhaps there is an individualized dose that can be obtained by titration. We also don’t know if the effect changes after repeated use,” Dr. Yuan cautioned.
He also noted that cannabis use was associated with medication overuse headache in a retrospective study, “although the causality remains to be determined.”
“While there was no serious adverse event, it is not completely risk-free, especially when cannabis is used repeatedly for a short duration. Since the physician does not have direct control over what happens at the dispensary, we need to counsel our patients more carefully when recommending cannabis/cannabinoids,” Dr. Yuan said.
Overall, he said he is “cautiously optimistic about cannabis use for acute migraine.”
This was an investigator-initiated study, with no commercial funding. Dr. Schuster has disclosed relationships with Schedule 1 Therapeutics, Averitas, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, ShiraTronics, and Syneos. In the past 24 months, Dr. Yuan has served as a site investigator for Teva, AbbVie, Ipsen, Parema; received advisory/consultant fees from Salvia, Pfizer, AbbVie, Cerenovus; and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
IV Ketamine Promising for Severe Refractory Headache in Children
DENVER — , new research suggests. In a retrospective chart review, IV ketamine led to in a 50% reduction in pain at discharge, with “nearly two-thirds” of patients having no recurrence within 30 days, noted lead investigator Scott Rosenthal, MD, from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
Dr. Rosenthal reported the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Statistically Significant Pain Relief
“IV ketamine has shown benefit in nonheadache chronic pain syndromes and refractory mood disorders. Patients with refractory status migraines are often left with ongoing pain and dysfunction after failing typical interventions,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
“Ketamine has emerged as a potential treatment option in this population. However, there’s very little research on the efficacy and tolerability of it in general as well as the pediatric population,” he noted.
Dr. Rosenthal and colleagues took a look back at patients admitted to Children’s Hospital Colorado between 2019 and 2022 for treatment of severe refractory headache who were treated with continuous IV ketamine.
They analyzed 68 encounters of 41 unique patients aged 5-21 years (median age 16 years; 85% girls). Chronic migraine without aura made up 79% of cases.
On presentation, most patients had an exacerbation or ongoing worsening of pain for about 10 days, and all but two were taking a preventive medication. Nearly 70% had a comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as anxiety or depression, and 60% had a comorbid chronic pain diagnosis separate from their headache diagnosis.
The primary outcome was percent pain reduction at discharge and headache recurrence within 72 hours, with headache recurrence defined as receipt of neurology care via phone, clinic, or hospital encounter.
Patients received IV ketamine at a median dose of 0.25 mg/kg/hr for a median of 3 days.
Overall, the treatment was “safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
There were no serious adverse events and no cardiac side effects; 7% (five out of 68) stopped treatment due to side effects. The most common side effects were dizziness (23%), nausea (16%), blurred vision (12%), hallucinations (19%), cognitive fog (7%), vomiting (6%) and dysphoria (4%), worsening headache (4%), and paresthesia and cramping (1.5%).
‘Exciting Starting Point’
At baseline, pain scores were 8 (on a scale of 0-10) and progressively fell (improved) during treatment. Pain scores were 6 on day 1 and were 5 on day 2, with a slight rebound to 5 at discharge, although the pain reduction at discharge (vs baseline) remained statistically significant (P < .001).
“The median percent pain reduction after 3 days of ketamine was about 40%,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
He noted that on the first day of treatment, 16% of patients responded to treatment (with a > 50% reduction in their initial pain); this doubled to 33% on day 2 and increased to 44% at discharge.
In terms of recurrence, 38% had a recurrence within 1 month, “meaning two thirds did not,” Dr. Rosenthal noted. Median time to recurrence was 7 days. There were no recurrences within 72 hours.
The researchers also tried to tease out which patients might respond best to ketamine.
“Surprisingly,” there wasn’t a strong effect of most demographic variables such as age, sex, gender identity, chronic pain, psychiatric comorbidities, duration of headache, or prior interventions, Dr. Rosenthal noted.
“Interestingly,” he said, patients who were on two or more preventive medications had a 50% reduction in their pain at discharge compared with a 33% reduction in patients taking one or no preventive medication. It’s possible that more preventative medications may “prime” a patient’s response to ketamine, Dr. Rosenthal said.
She added that future randomized studies are needed to further assess IV ketamine for refractory headache in children, but these results are “an exciting starting point.”
‘Still an Unknown’
Seniha Nur Ozudogru, MD, assistant professor of clinical neurology at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, echoed the need for further study.
The role of IV ketamine in refractory pediatric headache is “still an unknown,” said Dr. Ozudogru, who was not involved in the study.
She noted that currently, there is “no standard protocol for ketamine infusion, even for adults. Every institution has their own protocols, which makes it difficult.”
Dr. Ozudogru also wonders how “doable” in-hospital IV infusions over 3 days may be for children.
“Especially for chronic migraine patients, it can be really tricky to manage expectations in that even if they don’t respond and the headache doesn’t go away, they still may have to be discharged. That requires a specific approach and discussion with the patients,” Dr. Ozudogru said.
Intranasal ketamine is another potential option, she said, with a recent study suggesting that intranasal ketamine is an effective treatment for children hospitalized with refractory migraine.
“However, there is some concern about the potential of addiction and the side effects of hallucinations and what the main protocol will be, so this not a standard treatment and has to be studied further,” she said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Rosenthal and Dr. Ozudogru have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER — , new research suggests. In a retrospective chart review, IV ketamine led to in a 50% reduction in pain at discharge, with “nearly two-thirds” of patients having no recurrence within 30 days, noted lead investigator Scott Rosenthal, MD, from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
Dr. Rosenthal reported the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Statistically Significant Pain Relief
“IV ketamine has shown benefit in nonheadache chronic pain syndromes and refractory mood disorders. Patients with refractory status migraines are often left with ongoing pain and dysfunction after failing typical interventions,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
“Ketamine has emerged as a potential treatment option in this population. However, there’s very little research on the efficacy and tolerability of it in general as well as the pediatric population,” he noted.
Dr. Rosenthal and colleagues took a look back at patients admitted to Children’s Hospital Colorado between 2019 and 2022 for treatment of severe refractory headache who were treated with continuous IV ketamine.
They analyzed 68 encounters of 41 unique patients aged 5-21 years (median age 16 years; 85% girls). Chronic migraine without aura made up 79% of cases.
On presentation, most patients had an exacerbation or ongoing worsening of pain for about 10 days, and all but two were taking a preventive medication. Nearly 70% had a comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as anxiety or depression, and 60% had a comorbid chronic pain diagnosis separate from their headache diagnosis.
The primary outcome was percent pain reduction at discharge and headache recurrence within 72 hours, with headache recurrence defined as receipt of neurology care via phone, clinic, or hospital encounter.
Patients received IV ketamine at a median dose of 0.25 mg/kg/hr for a median of 3 days.
Overall, the treatment was “safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
There were no serious adverse events and no cardiac side effects; 7% (five out of 68) stopped treatment due to side effects. The most common side effects were dizziness (23%), nausea (16%), blurred vision (12%), hallucinations (19%), cognitive fog (7%), vomiting (6%) and dysphoria (4%), worsening headache (4%), and paresthesia and cramping (1.5%).
‘Exciting Starting Point’
At baseline, pain scores were 8 (on a scale of 0-10) and progressively fell (improved) during treatment. Pain scores were 6 on day 1 and were 5 on day 2, with a slight rebound to 5 at discharge, although the pain reduction at discharge (vs baseline) remained statistically significant (P < .001).
“The median percent pain reduction after 3 days of ketamine was about 40%,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
He noted that on the first day of treatment, 16% of patients responded to treatment (with a > 50% reduction in their initial pain); this doubled to 33% on day 2 and increased to 44% at discharge.
In terms of recurrence, 38% had a recurrence within 1 month, “meaning two thirds did not,” Dr. Rosenthal noted. Median time to recurrence was 7 days. There were no recurrences within 72 hours.
The researchers also tried to tease out which patients might respond best to ketamine.
“Surprisingly,” there wasn’t a strong effect of most demographic variables such as age, sex, gender identity, chronic pain, psychiatric comorbidities, duration of headache, or prior interventions, Dr. Rosenthal noted.
“Interestingly,” he said, patients who were on two or more preventive medications had a 50% reduction in their pain at discharge compared with a 33% reduction in patients taking one or no preventive medication. It’s possible that more preventative medications may “prime” a patient’s response to ketamine, Dr. Rosenthal said.
She added that future randomized studies are needed to further assess IV ketamine for refractory headache in children, but these results are “an exciting starting point.”
‘Still an Unknown’
Seniha Nur Ozudogru, MD, assistant professor of clinical neurology at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, echoed the need for further study.
The role of IV ketamine in refractory pediatric headache is “still an unknown,” said Dr. Ozudogru, who was not involved in the study.
She noted that currently, there is “no standard protocol for ketamine infusion, even for adults. Every institution has their own protocols, which makes it difficult.”
Dr. Ozudogru also wonders how “doable” in-hospital IV infusions over 3 days may be for children.
“Especially for chronic migraine patients, it can be really tricky to manage expectations in that even if they don’t respond and the headache doesn’t go away, they still may have to be discharged. That requires a specific approach and discussion with the patients,” Dr. Ozudogru said.
Intranasal ketamine is another potential option, she said, with a recent study suggesting that intranasal ketamine is an effective treatment for children hospitalized with refractory migraine.
“However, there is some concern about the potential of addiction and the side effects of hallucinations and what the main protocol will be, so this not a standard treatment and has to be studied further,” she said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Rosenthal and Dr. Ozudogru have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER — , new research suggests. In a retrospective chart review, IV ketamine led to in a 50% reduction in pain at discharge, with “nearly two-thirds” of patients having no recurrence within 30 days, noted lead investigator Scott Rosenthal, MD, from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
Dr. Rosenthal reported the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Statistically Significant Pain Relief
“IV ketamine has shown benefit in nonheadache chronic pain syndromes and refractory mood disorders. Patients with refractory status migraines are often left with ongoing pain and dysfunction after failing typical interventions,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
“Ketamine has emerged as a potential treatment option in this population. However, there’s very little research on the efficacy and tolerability of it in general as well as the pediatric population,” he noted.
Dr. Rosenthal and colleagues took a look back at patients admitted to Children’s Hospital Colorado between 2019 and 2022 for treatment of severe refractory headache who were treated with continuous IV ketamine.
They analyzed 68 encounters of 41 unique patients aged 5-21 years (median age 16 years; 85% girls). Chronic migraine without aura made up 79% of cases.
On presentation, most patients had an exacerbation or ongoing worsening of pain for about 10 days, and all but two were taking a preventive medication. Nearly 70% had a comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as anxiety or depression, and 60% had a comorbid chronic pain diagnosis separate from their headache diagnosis.
The primary outcome was percent pain reduction at discharge and headache recurrence within 72 hours, with headache recurrence defined as receipt of neurology care via phone, clinic, or hospital encounter.
Patients received IV ketamine at a median dose of 0.25 mg/kg/hr for a median of 3 days.
Overall, the treatment was “safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
There were no serious adverse events and no cardiac side effects; 7% (five out of 68) stopped treatment due to side effects. The most common side effects were dizziness (23%), nausea (16%), blurred vision (12%), hallucinations (19%), cognitive fog (7%), vomiting (6%) and dysphoria (4%), worsening headache (4%), and paresthesia and cramping (1.5%).
‘Exciting Starting Point’
At baseline, pain scores were 8 (on a scale of 0-10) and progressively fell (improved) during treatment. Pain scores were 6 on day 1 and were 5 on day 2, with a slight rebound to 5 at discharge, although the pain reduction at discharge (vs baseline) remained statistically significant (P < .001).
“The median percent pain reduction after 3 days of ketamine was about 40%,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
He noted that on the first day of treatment, 16% of patients responded to treatment (with a > 50% reduction in their initial pain); this doubled to 33% on day 2 and increased to 44% at discharge.
In terms of recurrence, 38% had a recurrence within 1 month, “meaning two thirds did not,” Dr. Rosenthal noted. Median time to recurrence was 7 days. There were no recurrences within 72 hours.
The researchers also tried to tease out which patients might respond best to ketamine.
“Surprisingly,” there wasn’t a strong effect of most demographic variables such as age, sex, gender identity, chronic pain, psychiatric comorbidities, duration of headache, or prior interventions, Dr. Rosenthal noted.
“Interestingly,” he said, patients who were on two or more preventive medications had a 50% reduction in their pain at discharge compared with a 33% reduction in patients taking one or no preventive medication. It’s possible that more preventative medications may “prime” a patient’s response to ketamine, Dr. Rosenthal said.
She added that future randomized studies are needed to further assess IV ketamine for refractory headache in children, but these results are “an exciting starting point.”
‘Still an Unknown’
Seniha Nur Ozudogru, MD, assistant professor of clinical neurology at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, echoed the need for further study.
The role of IV ketamine in refractory pediatric headache is “still an unknown,” said Dr. Ozudogru, who was not involved in the study.
She noted that currently, there is “no standard protocol for ketamine infusion, even for adults. Every institution has their own protocols, which makes it difficult.”
Dr. Ozudogru also wonders how “doable” in-hospital IV infusions over 3 days may be for children.
“Especially for chronic migraine patients, it can be really tricky to manage expectations in that even if they don’t respond and the headache doesn’t go away, they still may have to be discharged. That requires a specific approach and discussion with the patients,” Dr. Ozudogru said.
Intranasal ketamine is another potential option, she said, with a recent study suggesting that intranasal ketamine is an effective treatment for children hospitalized with refractory migraine.
“However, there is some concern about the potential of addiction and the side effects of hallucinations and what the main protocol will be, so this not a standard treatment and has to be studied further,” she said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Rosenthal and Dr. Ozudogru have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
Most Targeted Cancer Drugs Lack Substantial Clinical Benefit
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
First Long-Term Data on Atogepant for Migraine Prevention
DENVER —
The data show that 70% of patients treated with atogepant 60 mg daily achieved at least a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16 and this was maintained over 48 weeks of treatment.
“This is the first long-term study for assessing the safety and efficacy of a drug belonging to the gepant class, atogepant, used in the prevention of migraine in persons with episodic migraine who did not benefit from several previous preventive treatments or with chronic migraine,” said study investigator Cristina Tassorelli, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Pavia, Italy.
“It shows consistency of efficacy over 48 weeks and confirms the known safety profile of atogepant reported in randomized controlled trials, without detecting any new signal with the open-label use over 1 year,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The results were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology by Sait Ashina, MD, with the Comprehensive Headache Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
Novel Longer-Term Data
The extension study includes more than 500 patients who completed the phase 3 PROGRESS or ELEVATE randomized placebo-controlled trials of atogepant 60 mg once daily for prevention of episodic or chronic migraine. It will run for 156 weeks.
Dr. Ashina reported safety and tolerability data at 52 weeks of treatment and efficacy data between 13 and 48 weeks of treatment. The mean duration of atogepant exposure was 496.5 days, and the mean number of migraine days at baseline was 14.5.
With atogepant, monthly migraine days improved on average by 8.5 days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent over 48 weeks, Dr. Ashina reported. Similar improvements were observed for monthly headache days and monthly acute medication use days.
In addition, 70% of patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent during the 48 weeks of open-label treatment.
Overall safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant. “A small percentage of subjects (< 6%) discontinue the treatment because of side effects,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 5% of participants) were COVID-19 (28.7%), nasopharyngitis (10.9%), and constipation (8.2%).
As the first report of 1-year atogepant data, the results are “very encouraging” for patients and clinicians, Dr. Ashina said in wrapping up his presentation.
Important Advance, but Not Transformative
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, noted that “[w]hile the anti-CGRP medications represent an important advancement in migraine treatment, the data suggests they have not necessarily transformed the landscape as dramatically as some may have expected.
“The efficacy of the anti-CGRP drugs appears to be generally similar to previous preventive and mostly genericized treatments, offering modest but meaningful improvements in migraine frequency and severity for many patients,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“In terms of safety, the anti-CGRPs do seem to have a somewhat cleaner profile compared to earlier migraine preventives, which is certainly a positive. However, the long-term data is still emerging, so the full safety picture is not yet clear,” Dr. Lakhan added.
“These medications are also associated with significantly higher overall healthcare costs compared to other treatment approaches. The substantial cost implications, both for patients and the healthcare system, deserve careful consideration as we assess their overall value and role in migraine care going forward,” Dr. Lakhan said.
Funding was provided by AbbVie. Several investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company. Dr. Lakhan has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER —
The data show that 70% of patients treated with atogepant 60 mg daily achieved at least a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16 and this was maintained over 48 weeks of treatment.
“This is the first long-term study for assessing the safety and efficacy of a drug belonging to the gepant class, atogepant, used in the prevention of migraine in persons with episodic migraine who did not benefit from several previous preventive treatments or with chronic migraine,” said study investigator Cristina Tassorelli, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Pavia, Italy.
“It shows consistency of efficacy over 48 weeks and confirms the known safety profile of atogepant reported in randomized controlled trials, without detecting any new signal with the open-label use over 1 year,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The results were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology by Sait Ashina, MD, with the Comprehensive Headache Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
Novel Longer-Term Data
The extension study includes more than 500 patients who completed the phase 3 PROGRESS or ELEVATE randomized placebo-controlled trials of atogepant 60 mg once daily for prevention of episodic or chronic migraine. It will run for 156 weeks.
Dr. Ashina reported safety and tolerability data at 52 weeks of treatment and efficacy data between 13 and 48 weeks of treatment. The mean duration of atogepant exposure was 496.5 days, and the mean number of migraine days at baseline was 14.5.
With atogepant, monthly migraine days improved on average by 8.5 days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent over 48 weeks, Dr. Ashina reported. Similar improvements were observed for monthly headache days and monthly acute medication use days.
In addition, 70% of patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent during the 48 weeks of open-label treatment.
Overall safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant. “A small percentage of subjects (< 6%) discontinue the treatment because of side effects,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 5% of participants) were COVID-19 (28.7%), nasopharyngitis (10.9%), and constipation (8.2%).
As the first report of 1-year atogepant data, the results are “very encouraging” for patients and clinicians, Dr. Ashina said in wrapping up his presentation.
Important Advance, but Not Transformative
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, noted that “[w]hile the anti-CGRP medications represent an important advancement in migraine treatment, the data suggests they have not necessarily transformed the landscape as dramatically as some may have expected.
“The efficacy of the anti-CGRP drugs appears to be generally similar to previous preventive and mostly genericized treatments, offering modest but meaningful improvements in migraine frequency and severity for many patients,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“In terms of safety, the anti-CGRPs do seem to have a somewhat cleaner profile compared to earlier migraine preventives, which is certainly a positive. However, the long-term data is still emerging, so the full safety picture is not yet clear,” Dr. Lakhan added.
“These medications are also associated with significantly higher overall healthcare costs compared to other treatment approaches. The substantial cost implications, both for patients and the healthcare system, deserve careful consideration as we assess their overall value and role in migraine care going forward,” Dr. Lakhan said.
Funding was provided by AbbVie. Several investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company. Dr. Lakhan has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER —
The data show that 70% of patients treated with atogepant 60 mg daily achieved at least a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16 and this was maintained over 48 weeks of treatment.
“This is the first long-term study for assessing the safety and efficacy of a drug belonging to the gepant class, atogepant, used in the prevention of migraine in persons with episodic migraine who did not benefit from several previous preventive treatments or with chronic migraine,” said study investigator Cristina Tassorelli, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Pavia, Italy.
“It shows consistency of efficacy over 48 weeks and confirms the known safety profile of atogepant reported in randomized controlled trials, without detecting any new signal with the open-label use over 1 year,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The results were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology by Sait Ashina, MD, with the Comprehensive Headache Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
Novel Longer-Term Data
The extension study includes more than 500 patients who completed the phase 3 PROGRESS or ELEVATE randomized placebo-controlled trials of atogepant 60 mg once daily for prevention of episodic or chronic migraine. It will run for 156 weeks.
Dr. Ashina reported safety and tolerability data at 52 weeks of treatment and efficacy data between 13 and 48 weeks of treatment. The mean duration of atogepant exposure was 496.5 days, and the mean number of migraine days at baseline was 14.5.
With atogepant, monthly migraine days improved on average by 8.5 days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent over 48 weeks, Dr. Ashina reported. Similar improvements were observed for monthly headache days and monthly acute medication use days.
In addition, 70% of patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent during the 48 weeks of open-label treatment.
Overall safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant. “A small percentage of subjects (< 6%) discontinue the treatment because of side effects,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 5% of participants) were COVID-19 (28.7%), nasopharyngitis (10.9%), and constipation (8.2%).
As the first report of 1-year atogepant data, the results are “very encouraging” for patients and clinicians, Dr. Ashina said in wrapping up his presentation.
Important Advance, but Not Transformative
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, noted that “[w]hile the anti-CGRP medications represent an important advancement in migraine treatment, the data suggests they have not necessarily transformed the landscape as dramatically as some may have expected.
“The efficacy of the anti-CGRP drugs appears to be generally similar to previous preventive and mostly genericized treatments, offering modest but meaningful improvements in migraine frequency and severity for many patients,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“In terms of safety, the anti-CGRPs do seem to have a somewhat cleaner profile compared to earlier migraine preventives, which is certainly a positive. However, the long-term data is still emerging, so the full safety picture is not yet clear,” Dr. Lakhan added.
“These medications are also associated with significantly higher overall healthcare costs compared to other treatment approaches. The substantial cost implications, both for patients and the healthcare system, deserve careful consideration as we assess their overall value and role in migraine care going forward,” Dr. Lakhan said.
Funding was provided by AbbVie. Several investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company. Dr. Lakhan has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
Tension, Other Headache Types Robustly Linked to Attempted, Completed Suicide
DENVER – , results of a large study suggest.
The risk for suicide attempt was four times higher in people with trigeminal and autonomic cephalalgias (TAC), and the risk for completed suicide was double among those with posttraumatic headache compared with individuals with no headache.
The retrospective analysis included data on more than 100,000 headache patients from a Danish registry.
“The results suggest there’s a unique risk among headache patients for attempted and completed suicide,” lead investigator Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, resident, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the findings were presented. “This really underscores the potential importance of complementary psychiatric evaluation and treatment for individuals diagnosed with headache.”
Underestimated Problem
Headache disorders affect about half of working-age adults and are among the leading causes of productivity loss, absence from work, and disability.
Prior research suggests headache disorders often co-occur with psychiatric illness including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even attempted suicide.
However, previous studies that showed an increased risk for attempted suicide in patients with headache relied heavily on survey data and mostly focused on patients with migraine. There was little information on other headache types and on the risk for completed suicide.
Researchers used Danish registries to identify 64,057 patients with migraine, 40,160 with tension-type headache (TTH), 5743 with TAC, and 4253 with posttraumatic headache, all diagnosed from 1995 to 2019.
Some 5.8% of those with migraine, 6.3% with TAC, 7.2% with TTH, and 7.2% with posttraumatic headache, had a mood disorder (depression and anxiety combined) at baseline.
Those without a headache diagnosis were matched 5:1 to those with a headache diagnosis by sex and birth year.
Across all headache disorders, baseline prevalence of mood disorder was higher among those with headache versus population-matched controls. Dr. Elser emphasized that these are people diagnosed with a mood disorder in the inpatient, emergency department, or outpatient specialist clinic setting, “which means we are almost certainly underestimating the true burden of mood symptoms in our cohort,” she said.
Researchers identified attempted suicides using diagnostic codes. For completed suicide, they determined whether those who attempted suicide died within 30 days of the attempt.
For each headache type, investigators examined both the absolute and relative risk for attempted and completed suicides and estimated the risk at intervals of 5, 10, and 20 years after initial headache diagnosis.
Robust Link
The “power of this study is that we asked a simple, but important question, and answered it with simple, but appropriate, methodologic techniques,” Dr. Elser said.
The estimated risk differences (RDs) for attempted suicide were strongest for TAC and posttraumatic headache and for longer follow-ups. The RDs for completed suicide were largely the same but of a smaller magnitude and were “relatively less precise,” reflecting the “rarity of this outcome,” said Dr. Elser.
After adjusting for sex, age, education, income, comorbidities, and baseline medical and psychiatric diagnoses, researchers found the strongest association or attempted suicide was among those with TAC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.25; 95% CI, 2.85-6.33).
“A hazard ratio of 4 is enormous” for this type of comparison, Dr. Elser noted.
For completed suicide, the strongest association was with posttraumatic headache (aHR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.78-6.16).
The study revealed a robust association with attempted and completed suicide across all headache types, including TTH, noted Dr. Elser. The link between tension headaches and suicide “was the most striking finding to me because I think of that as sort of a benign and common headache disorder,” she said.
The was an observational study, so “it’s not clear whether headache is playing an etiological role in the relationship with suicide,” she said. “It’s possible there are common shared risk factors or confounders that explain the relationship in full or in part that aren’t accounted for in this study.”
Ask About Mood
The results underscore the need for psychiatric evaluations in patients with a headache disorder. “For me, this is just going to make me that much more likely to ask my patients about their mood when I see them in clinic,” Dr. Elser said.
After asking patients with headache about their mood and stress at home and at work, physicians should have a “low threshold to refer to a behavioral health provider,” she added.
Future research should aim to better understand the link between headache and suicide risk, with a focus on the mechanisms behind low- and high-risk subgroups, said Dr. Elser.
A limitation of the study was that headache diagnoses were based on inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient specialist visits but not on visits to primary care practitioners. The study didn’t include information on headache severity or frequency and included only people who sought treatment for their headaches.
Though it’s unlikely the results “are perfectly generalizable” with respect to other geographical or cultural contexts, “I don’t think this relationship is unique to Denmark based on the literature to date,” Dr. Elser said.
Commenting on the study, session co-chair Todd J. Schwedt, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, and president-elect of the American Headache Society, noted that the study offers important findings “that demonstrate the enormous negative impact that headaches can exert.”
It’s “a strong reminder” that clinicians should assess the mental health of their patients with headaches and offer treatment when appropriate, he said.
The study received support from Aarhus University. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER – , results of a large study suggest.
The risk for suicide attempt was four times higher in people with trigeminal and autonomic cephalalgias (TAC), and the risk for completed suicide was double among those with posttraumatic headache compared with individuals with no headache.
The retrospective analysis included data on more than 100,000 headache patients from a Danish registry.
“The results suggest there’s a unique risk among headache patients for attempted and completed suicide,” lead investigator Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, resident, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the findings were presented. “This really underscores the potential importance of complementary psychiatric evaluation and treatment for individuals diagnosed with headache.”
Underestimated Problem
Headache disorders affect about half of working-age adults and are among the leading causes of productivity loss, absence from work, and disability.
Prior research suggests headache disorders often co-occur with psychiatric illness including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even attempted suicide.
However, previous studies that showed an increased risk for attempted suicide in patients with headache relied heavily on survey data and mostly focused on patients with migraine. There was little information on other headache types and on the risk for completed suicide.
Researchers used Danish registries to identify 64,057 patients with migraine, 40,160 with tension-type headache (TTH), 5743 with TAC, and 4253 with posttraumatic headache, all diagnosed from 1995 to 2019.
Some 5.8% of those with migraine, 6.3% with TAC, 7.2% with TTH, and 7.2% with posttraumatic headache, had a mood disorder (depression and anxiety combined) at baseline.
Those without a headache diagnosis were matched 5:1 to those with a headache diagnosis by sex and birth year.
Across all headache disorders, baseline prevalence of mood disorder was higher among those with headache versus population-matched controls. Dr. Elser emphasized that these are people diagnosed with a mood disorder in the inpatient, emergency department, or outpatient specialist clinic setting, “which means we are almost certainly underestimating the true burden of mood symptoms in our cohort,” she said.
Researchers identified attempted suicides using diagnostic codes. For completed suicide, they determined whether those who attempted suicide died within 30 days of the attempt.
For each headache type, investigators examined both the absolute and relative risk for attempted and completed suicides and estimated the risk at intervals of 5, 10, and 20 years after initial headache diagnosis.
Robust Link
The “power of this study is that we asked a simple, but important question, and answered it with simple, but appropriate, methodologic techniques,” Dr. Elser said.
The estimated risk differences (RDs) for attempted suicide were strongest for TAC and posttraumatic headache and for longer follow-ups. The RDs for completed suicide were largely the same but of a smaller magnitude and were “relatively less precise,” reflecting the “rarity of this outcome,” said Dr. Elser.
After adjusting for sex, age, education, income, comorbidities, and baseline medical and psychiatric diagnoses, researchers found the strongest association or attempted suicide was among those with TAC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.25; 95% CI, 2.85-6.33).
“A hazard ratio of 4 is enormous” for this type of comparison, Dr. Elser noted.
For completed suicide, the strongest association was with posttraumatic headache (aHR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.78-6.16).
The study revealed a robust association with attempted and completed suicide across all headache types, including TTH, noted Dr. Elser. The link between tension headaches and suicide “was the most striking finding to me because I think of that as sort of a benign and common headache disorder,” she said.
The was an observational study, so “it’s not clear whether headache is playing an etiological role in the relationship with suicide,” she said. “It’s possible there are common shared risk factors or confounders that explain the relationship in full or in part that aren’t accounted for in this study.”
Ask About Mood
The results underscore the need for psychiatric evaluations in patients with a headache disorder. “For me, this is just going to make me that much more likely to ask my patients about their mood when I see them in clinic,” Dr. Elser said.
After asking patients with headache about their mood and stress at home and at work, physicians should have a “low threshold to refer to a behavioral health provider,” she added.
Future research should aim to better understand the link between headache and suicide risk, with a focus on the mechanisms behind low- and high-risk subgroups, said Dr. Elser.
A limitation of the study was that headache diagnoses were based on inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient specialist visits but not on visits to primary care practitioners. The study didn’t include information on headache severity or frequency and included only people who sought treatment for their headaches.
Though it’s unlikely the results “are perfectly generalizable” with respect to other geographical or cultural contexts, “I don’t think this relationship is unique to Denmark based on the literature to date,” Dr. Elser said.
Commenting on the study, session co-chair Todd J. Schwedt, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, and president-elect of the American Headache Society, noted that the study offers important findings “that demonstrate the enormous negative impact that headaches can exert.”
It’s “a strong reminder” that clinicians should assess the mental health of their patients with headaches and offer treatment when appropriate, he said.
The study received support from Aarhus University. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER – , results of a large study suggest.
The risk for suicide attempt was four times higher in people with trigeminal and autonomic cephalalgias (TAC), and the risk for completed suicide was double among those with posttraumatic headache compared with individuals with no headache.
The retrospective analysis included data on more than 100,000 headache patients from a Danish registry.
“The results suggest there’s a unique risk among headache patients for attempted and completed suicide,” lead investigator Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, resident, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the findings were presented. “This really underscores the potential importance of complementary psychiatric evaluation and treatment for individuals diagnosed with headache.”
Underestimated Problem
Headache disorders affect about half of working-age adults and are among the leading causes of productivity loss, absence from work, and disability.
Prior research suggests headache disorders often co-occur with psychiatric illness including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even attempted suicide.
However, previous studies that showed an increased risk for attempted suicide in patients with headache relied heavily on survey data and mostly focused on patients with migraine. There was little information on other headache types and on the risk for completed suicide.
Researchers used Danish registries to identify 64,057 patients with migraine, 40,160 with tension-type headache (TTH), 5743 with TAC, and 4253 with posttraumatic headache, all diagnosed from 1995 to 2019.
Some 5.8% of those with migraine, 6.3% with TAC, 7.2% with TTH, and 7.2% with posttraumatic headache, had a mood disorder (depression and anxiety combined) at baseline.
Those without a headache diagnosis were matched 5:1 to those with a headache diagnosis by sex and birth year.
Across all headache disorders, baseline prevalence of mood disorder was higher among those with headache versus population-matched controls. Dr. Elser emphasized that these are people diagnosed with a mood disorder in the inpatient, emergency department, or outpatient specialist clinic setting, “which means we are almost certainly underestimating the true burden of mood symptoms in our cohort,” she said.
Researchers identified attempted suicides using diagnostic codes. For completed suicide, they determined whether those who attempted suicide died within 30 days of the attempt.
For each headache type, investigators examined both the absolute and relative risk for attempted and completed suicides and estimated the risk at intervals of 5, 10, and 20 years after initial headache diagnosis.
Robust Link
The “power of this study is that we asked a simple, but important question, and answered it with simple, but appropriate, methodologic techniques,” Dr. Elser said.
The estimated risk differences (RDs) for attempted suicide were strongest for TAC and posttraumatic headache and for longer follow-ups. The RDs for completed suicide were largely the same but of a smaller magnitude and were “relatively less precise,” reflecting the “rarity of this outcome,” said Dr. Elser.
After adjusting for sex, age, education, income, comorbidities, and baseline medical and psychiatric diagnoses, researchers found the strongest association or attempted suicide was among those with TAC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.25; 95% CI, 2.85-6.33).
“A hazard ratio of 4 is enormous” for this type of comparison, Dr. Elser noted.
For completed suicide, the strongest association was with posttraumatic headache (aHR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.78-6.16).
The study revealed a robust association with attempted and completed suicide across all headache types, including TTH, noted Dr. Elser. The link between tension headaches and suicide “was the most striking finding to me because I think of that as sort of a benign and common headache disorder,” she said.
The was an observational study, so “it’s not clear whether headache is playing an etiological role in the relationship with suicide,” she said. “It’s possible there are common shared risk factors or confounders that explain the relationship in full or in part that aren’t accounted for in this study.”
Ask About Mood
The results underscore the need for psychiatric evaluations in patients with a headache disorder. “For me, this is just going to make me that much more likely to ask my patients about their mood when I see them in clinic,” Dr. Elser said.
After asking patients with headache about their mood and stress at home and at work, physicians should have a “low threshold to refer to a behavioral health provider,” she added.
Future research should aim to better understand the link between headache and suicide risk, with a focus on the mechanisms behind low- and high-risk subgroups, said Dr. Elser.
A limitation of the study was that headache diagnoses were based on inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient specialist visits but not on visits to primary care practitioners. The study didn’t include information on headache severity or frequency and included only people who sought treatment for their headaches.
Though it’s unlikely the results “are perfectly generalizable” with respect to other geographical or cultural contexts, “I don’t think this relationship is unique to Denmark based on the literature to date,” Dr. Elser said.
Commenting on the study, session co-chair Todd J. Schwedt, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, and president-elect of the American Headache Society, noted that the study offers important findings “that demonstrate the enormous negative impact that headaches can exert.”
It’s “a strong reminder” that clinicians should assess the mental health of their patients with headaches and offer treatment when appropriate, he said.
The study received support from Aarhus University. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
‘Compelling’ Results for AI EEG to Predict Functional Outcomes
DENVER —
After relevant cofactors were controlled for, higher seizure burden correlated with poorer functional outcomes. All of the patients in the study were being monitored as part of their standard of care owing to suspicion of seizures or because they were at risk for seizures, said study investigator Masoom Desai, MD, with the Department of Neurology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. The results were “compelling,” she said.
“Our study addresses the critical need for automation in monitoring epileptic activity and seizure burden,” Dr. Desai added during a press briefing at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
A Pivotal Shift
“Several decades of research have highlighted the significant correlation between seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes both in adult and pediatric populations,” said Dr. Desai.
However, the traditional method of manually interpreting EEGs to identify seizures and their associated burden is a “complex and time-consuming process that can be subject to human error and variability,” she noted.
POC EEG is a rapid-access, reduced-montage EEG system that, when paired with an automated machine learning tool called Clarity (Ceribell, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA), can monitor and analyze seizure burden in real time.
The algorithm incorporates a comprehensive list of EEG features that have been associated with outcomes. It analyzes EEG activity every 10 seconds from all EEG channels and calculates a seizure burden in the past 5 minutes for the patient. The higher the seizure burden, the more time the patient has spent in seizure activity.
Among 344 people with POC EEG (mean age, 62 years, 45% women) in the SAFER-EEG trial, 178 (52%) had seizure burden of zero throughout the recording and 41 (12%) had suspected status epilepticus (maximum seizure burden ≥ 90%).
Before adjustment for clinical covariates, there was a significant association between high seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes.
Specifically, 76% of patients with a seizure burden of 50% or greater had an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score of 4 or greater at discharge and a similar proportion was discharged to long-term care facilities, she noted.
After adjustment for relevant clinical covariants, patients with a high seizure burden (≥ 50 or > 90%) had a fourfold increase in odds of an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score compared with those with no seizure burden.
High seizure burden present in the last quarter of the recording was particularly indicative of unfavorable outcomes (fivefold increased odds), “suggesting the critical timing of seizures and its impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Desai noted.
‘Profound Implications’
“The implications of our research are profound, indicating a pivotal shift towards integrating AI and machine learning-guided automated EEG interpretation in management of critically ill patients with seizures,” she added.
“As we move forward, our research will concentrate on applying this advanced tool in clinical decision making in clinical practice, examining how it can steer treatment decisions for patients, with the ultimate goal of enhancing patient care and improving outcomes for those affected by these neurological challenges,” Dr. Desai said.
Briefing moderator Paul M. George, MD, PhD, chair of the AAN science committee, noted that this abstract was one of three featured at the “top science” press briefing themed “advancing the limits of neurologic care,” because it represents an “innovative method” of using new technology to improve understanding of neurologic conditions.
Dr. George said this technology “could be particularly useful in settings with few clinical specialists. It will be exciting to see as this unfolds, where it can guide maybe the ED doctor or primary care physician to help improve patient care.”
On that note, Dr. George cautioned that it’s still “early in the field” of using AI to guide decision-making and it will be important to gather more information to confirm that “machine learning algorithms can help guide physicians in treating patients with neurologic conditions.”
Funding for the study was provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ceribell, Inc. Dr. Desai received funding from Ceribell for this project. Dr. George has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER —
After relevant cofactors were controlled for, higher seizure burden correlated with poorer functional outcomes. All of the patients in the study were being monitored as part of their standard of care owing to suspicion of seizures or because they were at risk for seizures, said study investigator Masoom Desai, MD, with the Department of Neurology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. The results were “compelling,” she said.
“Our study addresses the critical need for automation in monitoring epileptic activity and seizure burden,” Dr. Desai added during a press briefing at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
A Pivotal Shift
“Several decades of research have highlighted the significant correlation between seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes both in adult and pediatric populations,” said Dr. Desai.
However, the traditional method of manually interpreting EEGs to identify seizures and their associated burden is a “complex and time-consuming process that can be subject to human error and variability,” she noted.
POC EEG is a rapid-access, reduced-montage EEG system that, when paired with an automated machine learning tool called Clarity (Ceribell, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA), can monitor and analyze seizure burden in real time.
The algorithm incorporates a comprehensive list of EEG features that have been associated with outcomes. It analyzes EEG activity every 10 seconds from all EEG channels and calculates a seizure burden in the past 5 minutes for the patient. The higher the seizure burden, the more time the patient has spent in seizure activity.
Among 344 people with POC EEG (mean age, 62 years, 45% women) in the SAFER-EEG trial, 178 (52%) had seizure burden of zero throughout the recording and 41 (12%) had suspected status epilepticus (maximum seizure burden ≥ 90%).
Before adjustment for clinical covariates, there was a significant association between high seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes.
Specifically, 76% of patients with a seizure burden of 50% or greater had an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score of 4 or greater at discharge and a similar proportion was discharged to long-term care facilities, she noted.
After adjustment for relevant clinical covariants, patients with a high seizure burden (≥ 50 or > 90%) had a fourfold increase in odds of an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score compared with those with no seizure burden.
High seizure burden present in the last quarter of the recording was particularly indicative of unfavorable outcomes (fivefold increased odds), “suggesting the critical timing of seizures and its impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Desai noted.
‘Profound Implications’
“The implications of our research are profound, indicating a pivotal shift towards integrating AI and machine learning-guided automated EEG interpretation in management of critically ill patients with seizures,” she added.
“As we move forward, our research will concentrate on applying this advanced tool in clinical decision making in clinical practice, examining how it can steer treatment decisions for patients, with the ultimate goal of enhancing patient care and improving outcomes for those affected by these neurological challenges,” Dr. Desai said.
Briefing moderator Paul M. George, MD, PhD, chair of the AAN science committee, noted that this abstract was one of three featured at the “top science” press briefing themed “advancing the limits of neurologic care,” because it represents an “innovative method” of using new technology to improve understanding of neurologic conditions.
Dr. George said this technology “could be particularly useful in settings with few clinical specialists. It will be exciting to see as this unfolds, where it can guide maybe the ED doctor or primary care physician to help improve patient care.”
On that note, Dr. George cautioned that it’s still “early in the field” of using AI to guide decision-making and it will be important to gather more information to confirm that “machine learning algorithms can help guide physicians in treating patients with neurologic conditions.”
Funding for the study was provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ceribell, Inc. Dr. Desai received funding from Ceribell for this project. Dr. George has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER —
After relevant cofactors were controlled for, higher seizure burden correlated with poorer functional outcomes. All of the patients in the study were being monitored as part of their standard of care owing to suspicion of seizures or because they were at risk for seizures, said study investigator Masoom Desai, MD, with the Department of Neurology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. The results were “compelling,” she said.
“Our study addresses the critical need for automation in monitoring epileptic activity and seizure burden,” Dr. Desai added during a press briefing at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
A Pivotal Shift
“Several decades of research have highlighted the significant correlation between seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes both in adult and pediatric populations,” said Dr. Desai.
However, the traditional method of manually interpreting EEGs to identify seizures and their associated burden is a “complex and time-consuming process that can be subject to human error and variability,” she noted.
POC EEG is a rapid-access, reduced-montage EEG system that, when paired with an automated machine learning tool called Clarity (Ceribell, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA), can monitor and analyze seizure burden in real time.
The algorithm incorporates a comprehensive list of EEG features that have been associated with outcomes. It analyzes EEG activity every 10 seconds from all EEG channels and calculates a seizure burden in the past 5 minutes for the patient. The higher the seizure burden, the more time the patient has spent in seizure activity.
Among 344 people with POC EEG (mean age, 62 years, 45% women) in the SAFER-EEG trial, 178 (52%) had seizure burden of zero throughout the recording and 41 (12%) had suspected status epilepticus (maximum seizure burden ≥ 90%).
Before adjustment for clinical covariates, there was a significant association between high seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes.
Specifically, 76% of patients with a seizure burden of 50% or greater had an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score of 4 or greater at discharge and a similar proportion was discharged to long-term care facilities, she noted.
After adjustment for relevant clinical covariants, patients with a high seizure burden (≥ 50 or > 90%) had a fourfold increase in odds of an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score compared with those with no seizure burden.
High seizure burden present in the last quarter of the recording was particularly indicative of unfavorable outcomes (fivefold increased odds), “suggesting the critical timing of seizures and its impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Desai noted.
‘Profound Implications’
“The implications of our research are profound, indicating a pivotal shift towards integrating AI and machine learning-guided automated EEG interpretation in management of critically ill patients with seizures,” she added.
“As we move forward, our research will concentrate on applying this advanced tool in clinical decision making in clinical practice, examining how it can steer treatment decisions for patients, with the ultimate goal of enhancing patient care and improving outcomes for those affected by these neurological challenges,” Dr. Desai said.
Briefing moderator Paul M. George, MD, PhD, chair of the AAN science committee, noted that this abstract was one of three featured at the “top science” press briefing themed “advancing the limits of neurologic care,” because it represents an “innovative method” of using new technology to improve understanding of neurologic conditions.
Dr. George said this technology “could be particularly useful in settings with few clinical specialists. It will be exciting to see as this unfolds, where it can guide maybe the ED doctor or primary care physician to help improve patient care.”
On that note, Dr. George cautioned that it’s still “early in the field” of using AI to guide decision-making and it will be important to gather more information to confirm that “machine learning algorithms can help guide physicians in treating patients with neurologic conditions.”
Funding for the study was provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ceribell, Inc. Dr. Desai received funding from Ceribell for this project. Dr. George has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
Physicians Own Less Than Half of US Practices; Federal Agencies Want Outside Input
Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.
As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.
In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.
These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.
“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.
The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.
By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.
“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
Federal Scrutiny Increases
However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.
“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.
This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.
Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.
The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.
For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:
- Take-home pay
- Staffing levels
- Workplace safety
- Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
- Policies regarding patient referrals
- Mix of patients
- The volume of patients
- The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
- Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.
As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.
In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.
These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.
“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.
The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.
By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.
“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
Federal Scrutiny Increases
However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.
“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.
This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.
Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.
The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.
For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:
- Take-home pay
- Staffing levels
- Workplace safety
- Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
- Policies regarding patient referrals
- Mix of patients
- The volume of patients
- The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
- Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.
As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.
In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.
These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.
“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.
The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.
By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.
“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
Federal Scrutiny Increases
However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.
“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.
This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.
Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.
The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.
For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:
- Take-home pay
- Staffing levels
- Workplace safety
- Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
- Policies regarding patient referrals
- Mix of patients
- The volume of patients
- The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
- Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In Lecanemab Alzheimer Extension Study, Placebo Roll-Over Group Does Not Catch Up
DENVER — , according to a first report of 6-month OLE data.
Due to the steady disease progression observed after the switch of placebo to active therapy, the message of these data is that “early initiation of lecanemab is important,” according to Michael Irizarry, MD, the senior vice president of clinical research at Eisai Ltd, which markets lecanemab.
The 6-month OLE data along with data from a tau PET substudy were presented by Dr. Irizarry at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
From the start of the OLE through the 6-month follow-up, the downward trajectory of cognitive function, as measured with the Clinical Dementia Rating – Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), has been parallel for the lecanemab-start and switch arms. As a result, the degree of separation between active and placebo groups over the course of the OLE has remained unchanged from the end of the randomized trial.
This does not rule out any benefit in the switch arm, according to Dr. Irizarry. Although there was no discernible change in the trajectory of decline among placebo patients after they were switched to lecanemab, Dr. Irizarry postulated that this might overlook the greater likely decline over time with no treatment.
“There was no placebo group in the OLE to compare with those on active treatment,” he pointed out. He then juxtaposed data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Over the same 6-month timeframe, these data show a hypothetical separation of the curves if no treatment had been received.
The 6-month OLE data provide a preliminary look at outcomes in a planned 4-year follow-up. At the end of the randomized CLARITY trial, the mean decline from the baseline CDR-SB score of 3.2, was 1.21 in the lecanemab group, translating into a 38% decline, and 1.66 in the placebo group, translating into about a 50% decline. Over the 6 months of OLE, there has been a further mean CDR-SB reduction of approximately 0.6 in both arms, suggesting a further 18% decline from baseline.
Additional Data
In the pivotal CLARITY trial, which was published a few months prior to regulatory approval early last year, 1785 patients were randomized to 10 mg/kg lecanemab or placebo infused every 2 weeks. At the end of 18 months, the superiority of lecanemab for the primary endpoint of adverse change in CDR-SB was highly significant (P < .001) as were the differences in key secondary endpoints, such as Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (P < .001).
Of those who participated in CLARITY, 1385 patients entered the OLE. Placebo patients were switched to lecanemab which is being maintained in all patients on the trial schedule of 10 mg/kg administered by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks.
In addition to the overall OLE 6-month data, which has not raised any new safety signals, Dr. Irizarry provided a new look at the PET TAU substudy with a focus on patients who entered the study with a low relative tau burden. Of the three classifications, which also included medium and high tau, as measured with positron-emission tomography (PET), the low tau group represented 41.2% of the 342 tau PET substudy participants. With only 2.9% entering the study with a high tau burden, almost all the others fell in the medium stratification.
Due to the potential for a lower therapeutic response, “patients with low Tau are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Irizarry said. But the sizable proportion of low tau patients has permitted an assessment of relative response with lecanemab, which turned out to be substantial.
“Consistent rates of clinical stability or improvements were observed regardless of baseline tau levels with the highest rates of improvements observed for the low tau group after 24 months of follow-up,” Dr. Irizarry reported.
In previously reported results from the tau PET substudy, lecanemab was shown to slow tau spread at least numerically in every section of the brain evaluated, including the frontal, cingulate, parietal, and whole cortical gray matter areas. The reductions reached significance for the medial temporal (P = .0024), meta temporal (P = .012), and temporal (P = .16) portions.
When most recently evaluated in the OLE, the CDR-SB score declined 38% less among those treated with lecanemab than those treated with placebo in the subgroup enrolled in the tau PET substudy.
Relative to those with intermediate or high tau, patients in the low tau had an even greater reduction in cognitive decline than those with higher tau burdens. Although Dr. Irizarry cautioned that greater baseline CDR-SB scores exaggerated the treatment effect in the low tau group, the message is that “a lecanemab treatment effect is seen even when baseline tau levels are low.”
Now, with the recent market withdrawal of aducanumab, another anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody that was previously approved for Alzheimer’s disease, lecanemab is the only therapy currently available for the goal of changing disease progression, not just modifying symptoms.
Looking Long Term
Both sets of data provide important messages for clinicians, according to Marcelo Matiello, MD, a physician investigator at Mass General Hospital and associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“Clinicians are really looking for more data because this remains a relatively new drug,” he said. Both sets of findings presented by Dr. Irizarry “look good but the follow-up is still short, so I think everyone is still looking closely at long-term safety and efficacy.”
The need for continuous indefinite therapy is one concern that Dr. Matiello expressed. As moderator of the session in which these data were presented, Dr. Matiello specifically asked Dr. Irizarry if there are plans to explore whether periods without treatment might be a means to reduce the cost and burden of frequent infusions while preserving cognitive gains.
In response, Dr. Irizarry said that earlier studies showed rapid progression when lecanemab was stopped. On this basis, he thinks therapy must be maintained, but he did say that there are plans to look at less frequent dosing, such as once per month. He also said that a subcutaneous formulation in development might also reduce the burden of prolonged treatment.
Dr. Irizarry is an employee of Eisai Ltd., which manufacturers lecanemab. Dr. Matiello reports no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER — , according to a first report of 6-month OLE data.
Due to the steady disease progression observed after the switch of placebo to active therapy, the message of these data is that “early initiation of lecanemab is important,” according to Michael Irizarry, MD, the senior vice president of clinical research at Eisai Ltd, which markets lecanemab.
The 6-month OLE data along with data from a tau PET substudy were presented by Dr. Irizarry at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
From the start of the OLE through the 6-month follow-up, the downward trajectory of cognitive function, as measured with the Clinical Dementia Rating – Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), has been parallel for the lecanemab-start and switch arms. As a result, the degree of separation between active and placebo groups over the course of the OLE has remained unchanged from the end of the randomized trial.
This does not rule out any benefit in the switch arm, according to Dr. Irizarry. Although there was no discernible change in the trajectory of decline among placebo patients after they were switched to lecanemab, Dr. Irizarry postulated that this might overlook the greater likely decline over time with no treatment.
“There was no placebo group in the OLE to compare with those on active treatment,” he pointed out. He then juxtaposed data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Over the same 6-month timeframe, these data show a hypothetical separation of the curves if no treatment had been received.
The 6-month OLE data provide a preliminary look at outcomes in a planned 4-year follow-up. At the end of the randomized CLARITY trial, the mean decline from the baseline CDR-SB score of 3.2, was 1.21 in the lecanemab group, translating into a 38% decline, and 1.66 in the placebo group, translating into about a 50% decline. Over the 6 months of OLE, there has been a further mean CDR-SB reduction of approximately 0.6 in both arms, suggesting a further 18% decline from baseline.
Additional Data
In the pivotal CLARITY trial, which was published a few months prior to regulatory approval early last year, 1785 patients were randomized to 10 mg/kg lecanemab or placebo infused every 2 weeks. At the end of 18 months, the superiority of lecanemab for the primary endpoint of adverse change in CDR-SB was highly significant (P < .001) as were the differences in key secondary endpoints, such as Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (P < .001).
Of those who participated in CLARITY, 1385 patients entered the OLE. Placebo patients were switched to lecanemab which is being maintained in all patients on the trial schedule of 10 mg/kg administered by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks.
In addition to the overall OLE 6-month data, which has not raised any new safety signals, Dr. Irizarry provided a new look at the PET TAU substudy with a focus on patients who entered the study with a low relative tau burden. Of the three classifications, which also included medium and high tau, as measured with positron-emission tomography (PET), the low tau group represented 41.2% of the 342 tau PET substudy participants. With only 2.9% entering the study with a high tau burden, almost all the others fell in the medium stratification.
Due to the potential for a lower therapeutic response, “patients with low Tau are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Irizarry said. But the sizable proportion of low tau patients has permitted an assessment of relative response with lecanemab, which turned out to be substantial.
“Consistent rates of clinical stability or improvements were observed regardless of baseline tau levels with the highest rates of improvements observed for the low tau group after 24 months of follow-up,” Dr. Irizarry reported.
In previously reported results from the tau PET substudy, lecanemab was shown to slow tau spread at least numerically in every section of the brain evaluated, including the frontal, cingulate, parietal, and whole cortical gray matter areas. The reductions reached significance for the medial temporal (P = .0024), meta temporal (P = .012), and temporal (P = .16) portions.
When most recently evaluated in the OLE, the CDR-SB score declined 38% less among those treated with lecanemab than those treated with placebo in the subgroup enrolled in the tau PET substudy.
Relative to those with intermediate or high tau, patients in the low tau had an even greater reduction in cognitive decline than those with higher tau burdens. Although Dr. Irizarry cautioned that greater baseline CDR-SB scores exaggerated the treatment effect in the low tau group, the message is that “a lecanemab treatment effect is seen even when baseline tau levels are low.”
Now, with the recent market withdrawal of aducanumab, another anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody that was previously approved for Alzheimer’s disease, lecanemab is the only therapy currently available for the goal of changing disease progression, not just modifying symptoms.
Looking Long Term
Both sets of data provide important messages for clinicians, according to Marcelo Matiello, MD, a physician investigator at Mass General Hospital and associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“Clinicians are really looking for more data because this remains a relatively new drug,” he said. Both sets of findings presented by Dr. Irizarry “look good but the follow-up is still short, so I think everyone is still looking closely at long-term safety and efficacy.”
The need for continuous indefinite therapy is one concern that Dr. Matiello expressed. As moderator of the session in which these data were presented, Dr. Matiello specifically asked Dr. Irizarry if there are plans to explore whether periods without treatment might be a means to reduce the cost and burden of frequent infusions while preserving cognitive gains.
In response, Dr. Irizarry said that earlier studies showed rapid progression when lecanemab was stopped. On this basis, he thinks therapy must be maintained, but he did say that there are plans to look at less frequent dosing, such as once per month. He also said that a subcutaneous formulation in development might also reduce the burden of prolonged treatment.
Dr. Irizarry is an employee of Eisai Ltd., which manufacturers lecanemab. Dr. Matiello reports no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER — , according to a first report of 6-month OLE data.
Due to the steady disease progression observed after the switch of placebo to active therapy, the message of these data is that “early initiation of lecanemab is important,” according to Michael Irizarry, MD, the senior vice president of clinical research at Eisai Ltd, which markets lecanemab.
The 6-month OLE data along with data from a tau PET substudy were presented by Dr. Irizarry at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
From the start of the OLE through the 6-month follow-up, the downward trajectory of cognitive function, as measured with the Clinical Dementia Rating – Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), has been parallel for the lecanemab-start and switch arms. As a result, the degree of separation between active and placebo groups over the course of the OLE has remained unchanged from the end of the randomized trial.
This does not rule out any benefit in the switch arm, according to Dr. Irizarry. Although there was no discernible change in the trajectory of decline among placebo patients after they were switched to lecanemab, Dr. Irizarry postulated that this might overlook the greater likely decline over time with no treatment.
“There was no placebo group in the OLE to compare with those on active treatment,” he pointed out. He then juxtaposed data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Over the same 6-month timeframe, these data show a hypothetical separation of the curves if no treatment had been received.
The 6-month OLE data provide a preliminary look at outcomes in a planned 4-year follow-up. At the end of the randomized CLARITY trial, the mean decline from the baseline CDR-SB score of 3.2, was 1.21 in the lecanemab group, translating into a 38% decline, and 1.66 in the placebo group, translating into about a 50% decline. Over the 6 months of OLE, there has been a further mean CDR-SB reduction of approximately 0.6 in both arms, suggesting a further 18% decline from baseline.
Additional Data
In the pivotal CLARITY trial, which was published a few months prior to regulatory approval early last year, 1785 patients were randomized to 10 mg/kg lecanemab or placebo infused every 2 weeks. At the end of 18 months, the superiority of lecanemab for the primary endpoint of adverse change in CDR-SB was highly significant (P < .001) as were the differences in key secondary endpoints, such as Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (P < .001).
Of those who participated in CLARITY, 1385 patients entered the OLE. Placebo patients were switched to lecanemab which is being maintained in all patients on the trial schedule of 10 mg/kg administered by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks.
In addition to the overall OLE 6-month data, which has not raised any new safety signals, Dr. Irizarry provided a new look at the PET TAU substudy with a focus on patients who entered the study with a low relative tau burden. Of the three classifications, which also included medium and high tau, as measured with positron-emission tomography (PET), the low tau group represented 41.2% of the 342 tau PET substudy participants. With only 2.9% entering the study with a high tau burden, almost all the others fell in the medium stratification.
Due to the potential for a lower therapeutic response, “patients with low Tau are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Irizarry said. But the sizable proportion of low tau patients has permitted an assessment of relative response with lecanemab, which turned out to be substantial.
“Consistent rates of clinical stability or improvements were observed regardless of baseline tau levels with the highest rates of improvements observed for the low tau group after 24 months of follow-up,” Dr. Irizarry reported.
In previously reported results from the tau PET substudy, lecanemab was shown to slow tau spread at least numerically in every section of the brain evaluated, including the frontal, cingulate, parietal, and whole cortical gray matter areas. The reductions reached significance for the medial temporal (P = .0024), meta temporal (P = .012), and temporal (P = .16) portions.
When most recently evaluated in the OLE, the CDR-SB score declined 38% less among those treated with lecanemab than those treated with placebo in the subgroup enrolled in the tau PET substudy.
Relative to those with intermediate or high tau, patients in the low tau had an even greater reduction in cognitive decline than those with higher tau burdens. Although Dr. Irizarry cautioned that greater baseline CDR-SB scores exaggerated the treatment effect in the low tau group, the message is that “a lecanemab treatment effect is seen even when baseline tau levels are low.”
Now, with the recent market withdrawal of aducanumab, another anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody that was previously approved for Alzheimer’s disease, lecanemab is the only therapy currently available for the goal of changing disease progression, not just modifying symptoms.
Looking Long Term
Both sets of data provide important messages for clinicians, according to Marcelo Matiello, MD, a physician investigator at Mass General Hospital and associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“Clinicians are really looking for more data because this remains a relatively new drug,” he said. Both sets of findings presented by Dr. Irizarry “look good but the follow-up is still short, so I think everyone is still looking closely at long-term safety and efficacy.”
The need for continuous indefinite therapy is one concern that Dr. Matiello expressed. As moderator of the session in which these data were presented, Dr. Matiello specifically asked Dr. Irizarry if there are plans to explore whether periods without treatment might be a means to reduce the cost and burden of frequent infusions while preserving cognitive gains.
In response, Dr. Irizarry said that earlier studies showed rapid progression when lecanemab was stopped. On this basis, he thinks therapy must be maintained, but he did say that there are plans to look at less frequent dosing, such as once per month. He also said that a subcutaneous formulation in development might also reduce the burden of prolonged treatment.
Dr. Irizarry is an employee of Eisai Ltd., which manufacturers lecanemab. Dr. Matiello reports no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM AAN 2024
Cannabis Constituent May Be Key to Easing THC-Induced Anxiety
, new data from a small study suggested.
Participants who inhaled vaporized D-limonene and THC reported significantly greater decreases in anxiogenic effects than did people who received either component alone or a placebo. Reductions were greater as the dose of the D-limonene was increased.
Investigators noted that the findings could have implications for the use of medicinal or recreational cannabis, which has increased in recent years due to state legalization efforts.
“People use cannabis to help reduce anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder, but since THC levels vary widely, if a person overshoots their tolerance of THC, cannabis can induce anxiety rather than relieve it,” senior investigator Ryan Vandrey, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a news release.
“Our study demonstrates that D-limonene can modulate the effects of THC in a meaningful way and make THC more tolerable to people using it for both therapeutic and non-therapeutic purposes,” he added.
The study was published online in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Entourage Theory
Cannabis legalization has opened the door to an increased range of medicinal and nonmedicinal uses, but its benefits can be limited by the anxiety and panic some people experience with its use, investigators noted.
Many cannabis plants have been bred to contain higher concentrations of THC, with some dispensaries selling cannabis with more than 20%-30% THC. The plants often include cannabidiol, “minor” cannabinoids, and terpenes, such as D-limonene.
Prior studies pointed to THC as the cause of acute behavioral and psychoactive effects some cannabis users experience. However, a new, untested theory, the “cannabis entourage effect theory,” suggested other components in cannabis, including D-limonene, may contribute to the anxiogenic symptoms.
“We were motivated by scientific publications that hypothesized D-limonene can attenuate the acute anxiogenic effects of cannabis, but for which empirical data did not exist,” Dr. Vandrey said.
Investigators designed a small double-blind, within-subjects crossover study of 20 healthy adults (median age, 26 years; 50% men). About half of participants were Caucasian/non-Hispanic, 30% African American/non-Hispanic, 10% Caucasian/Hispanic, and 10% Asian/non-Hispanic.
All participants completed nine outpatient drug administration sessions, during which they inhaled vaporized D-limonene alone (1 or 5 mg), THC alone (15 or 30 mg), the same doses of THC and D-limonene together, or placebo.
Primary outcomes included subjective drug effects, measured with the Drug Effect Questionnaire (DEQ) and the 20-item state subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S). Investigators also measured cognitive/psychomotor performance with the Digit Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) and the Paced Serial Addition Task.
Vital signs such as heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and plasma D-limonene and THC concentrations were also tracked.
Participants’ responses were measured at baseline and then an additional nine times after initial exposure over the course of each 6-hour test session. Blood and urine samples were collected from participants before, during, and after each session.
First Evidence
There were no significant differences in outcomes between the D-limonene alone and placebo groups.
Receipt of 15- and 30-mg doses of THC alone was associated with subjective reports of acute cannabis exposure, including cognitive and physiological effects.
A treatment effect was observed for “anxious/nervous” (P < .01), “paranoid” (P < .01), and “heart racing” (P < .0001).
In planned comparisons, ratings of anxiety-like subjective effects qualitatively decreased as D-limonene dose increased, and concurrent administration of 30-mg THC plus 15-mg D-limonene significantly reduced ratings of “anxious/nervous” and “paranoid” on the DEQ compared to 30 mg of THC alone (P < .05).
Findings were similar on the composite score of the STAI-S, and although planned comparisons did not reach the threshold for statistical significance, reductions in anxiety approached significance in the THC plus D-limonene group compared with the THC alone condition (P = .08). The combination group also reported significantly lower subjective ratings of unpleasant drug effects than the THC alone group (P = .03).
In particular, a main effect of treatment was found for the anxious/nervous category on the DEQ (P < .01), as well as the “paranoid” (P < .01) and heart racing (P < .0001) categories.
On the other hand, ratings of anxious/nervous and paranoid categories were significantly lower in the 30-mg THC plus 15-mg D-limonene vs the 30-mg THC alone condition (P < .05, for all).
As for cognition, following drug administration, a significant main effect of treatment was observed for the DSST (P < .05), but no significant differences between THC and THC plus D-limonene combination conditions or between D-limonene alone and placebo were detected.
There were no differences within each THC dose and between D-limonene alone versus placebo conditions. Moreover, there were no main effects of treatment found for SBP or DBP.
The combination condition produced significantly greater concentrations of THC than the THC alone condition (P < .05).
“This study provides the first evidence that there are chemical constituents found naturally in the cannabis plant that can reduce some of the adverse effects of using delta-9-THC,” Dr. Vandrey said.
Although the exact mechanism by which vaporized D-limonene counters the anxiogenic effects of THC is unclear, “our best guess is that D-limonene is producing an anxiolytic effect on its own that is not mediated by cannabinoid receptors,” Dr. Vandrey said.
Significant Impact
Commenting on the research, Joshua Lile, PhD, professor, Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, noted that the study seems to be the first of its kind to study the influence of terpene on THC response.
The research “makes a significant impact on our field,” and is “among the few controlled clinical studies that have demonstrated interactions between THC and other cannabis constituents, supporting the validity of the ‘entourage’ effect,” said Dr. Lile, who was not involved with the current research.
“This work is particularly important, given the unfounded claims sometimes made by the cannabis industry regarding the effects of different cannabis products,” he added.
Also commenting on the study, Ziva Cooper, PhD, professor and director of the UCLA Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids, University of California Los Angeles, said the findings “have direct implications for improving the safety of cannabis, whether it’s being used for medical or nonmedical purposes, especially in people and patients who do not have experience with cannabis, a group that is at high risk for experiencing anxiety after using cannabis.”
In addition, “an important aspect to this study is that the effects of limonene in reducing anxiety attributed to delta-9-THC were observed at higher concentrations (or doses) than those usually present in the plant,” Dr. Copper said. “This calls for further investigation into new cannabis formulations specifically designed to leverage the potential protective effects of the terpene.”
This research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Vandrey served as a consultant or received honoraria from Mira1a Therapeutics, Inc.; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Charlotte’s Web; Syqe Medical Ltd.; and WebMD. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Lile declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper reported receiving study drug from Canopy Growth Corp and True Terpenes, study-related materials from Storz & Bickel, and research support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, California Department of Cannabis Control, Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, and California Highway Patrol.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data from a small study suggested.
Participants who inhaled vaporized D-limonene and THC reported significantly greater decreases in anxiogenic effects than did people who received either component alone or a placebo. Reductions were greater as the dose of the D-limonene was increased.
Investigators noted that the findings could have implications for the use of medicinal or recreational cannabis, which has increased in recent years due to state legalization efforts.
“People use cannabis to help reduce anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder, but since THC levels vary widely, if a person overshoots their tolerance of THC, cannabis can induce anxiety rather than relieve it,” senior investigator Ryan Vandrey, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a news release.
“Our study demonstrates that D-limonene can modulate the effects of THC in a meaningful way and make THC more tolerable to people using it for both therapeutic and non-therapeutic purposes,” he added.
The study was published online in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Entourage Theory
Cannabis legalization has opened the door to an increased range of medicinal and nonmedicinal uses, but its benefits can be limited by the anxiety and panic some people experience with its use, investigators noted.
Many cannabis plants have been bred to contain higher concentrations of THC, with some dispensaries selling cannabis with more than 20%-30% THC. The plants often include cannabidiol, “minor” cannabinoids, and terpenes, such as D-limonene.
Prior studies pointed to THC as the cause of acute behavioral and psychoactive effects some cannabis users experience. However, a new, untested theory, the “cannabis entourage effect theory,” suggested other components in cannabis, including D-limonene, may contribute to the anxiogenic symptoms.
“We were motivated by scientific publications that hypothesized D-limonene can attenuate the acute anxiogenic effects of cannabis, but for which empirical data did not exist,” Dr. Vandrey said.
Investigators designed a small double-blind, within-subjects crossover study of 20 healthy adults (median age, 26 years; 50% men). About half of participants were Caucasian/non-Hispanic, 30% African American/non-Hispanic, 10% Caucasian/Hispanic, and 10% Asian/non-Hispanic.
All participants completed nine outpatient drug administration sessions, during which they inhaled vaporized D-limonene alone (1 or 5 mg), THC alone (15 or 30 mg), the same doses of THC and D-limonene together, or placebo.
Primary outcomes included subjective drug effects, measured with the Drug Effect Questionnaire (DEQ) and the 20-item state subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S). Investigators also measured cognitive/psychomotor performance with the Digit Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) and the Paced Serial Addition Task.
Vital signs such as heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and plasma D-limonene and THC concentrations were also tracked.
Participants’ responses were measured at baseline and then an additional nine times after initial exposure over the course of each 6-hour test session. Blood and urine samples were collected from participants before, during, and after each session.
First Evidence
There were no significant differences in outcomes between the D-limonene alone and placebo groups.
Receipt of 15- and 30-mg doses of THC alone was associated with subjective reports of acute cannabis exposure, including cognitive and physiological effects.
A treatment effect was observed for “anxious/nervous” (P < .01), “paranoid” (P < .01), and “heart racing” (P < .0001).
In planned comparisons, ratings of anxiety-like subjective effects qualitatively decreased as D-limonene dose increased, and concurrent administration of 30-mg THC plus 15-mg D-limonene significantly reduced ratings of “anxious/nervous” and “paranoid” on the DEQ compared to 30 mg of THC alone (P < .05).
Findings were similar on the composite score of the STAI-S, and although planned comparisons did not reach the threshold for statistical significance, reductions in anxiety approached significance in the THC plus D-limonene group compared with the THC alone condition (P = .08). The combination group also reported significantly lower subjective ratings of unpleasant drug effects than the THC alone group (P = .03).
In particular, a main effect of treatment was found for the anxious/nervous category on the DEQ (P < .01), as well as the “paranoid” (P < .01) and heart racing (P < .0001) categories.
On the other hand, ratings of anxious/nervous and paranoid categories were significantly lower in the 30-mg THC plus 15-mg D-limonene vs the 30-mg THC alone condition (P < .05, for all).
As for cognition, following drug administration, a significant main effect of treatment was observed for the DSST (P < .05), but no significant differences between THC and THC plus D-limonene combination conditions or between D-limonene alone and placebo were detected.
There were no differences within each THC dose and between D-limonene alone versus placebo conditions. Moreover, there were no main effects of treatment found for SBP or DBP.
The combination condition produced significantly greater concentrations of THC than the THC alone condition (P < .05).
“This study provides the first evidence that there are chemical constituents found naturally in the cannabis plant that can reduce some of the adverse effects of using delta-9-THC,” Dr. Vandrey said.
Although the exact mechanism by which vaporized D-limonene counters the anxiogenic effects of THC is unclear, “our best guess is that D-limonene is producing an anxiolytic effect on its own that is not mediated by cannabinoid receptors,” Dr. Vandrey said.
Significant Impact
Commenting on the research, Joshua Lile, PhD, professor, Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, noted that the study seems to be the first of its kind to study the influence of terpene on THC response.
The research “makes a significant impact on our field,” and is “among the few controlled clinical studies that have demonstrated interactions between THC and other cannabis constituents, supporting the validity of the ‘entourage’ effect,” said Dr. Lile, who was not involved with the current research.
“This work is particularly important, given the unfounded claims sometimes made by the cannabis industry regarding the effects of different cannabis products,” he added.
Also commenting on the study, Ziva Cooper, PhD, professor and director of the UCLA Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids, University of California Los Angeles, said the findings “have direct implications for improving the safety of cannabis, whether it’s being used for medical or nonmedical purposes, especially in people and patients who do not have experience with cannabis, a group that is at high risk for experiencing anxiety after using cannabis.”
In addition, “an important aspect to this study is that the effects of limonene in reducing anxiety attributed to delta-9-THC were observed at higher concentrations (or doses) than those usually present in the plant,” Dr. Copper said. “This calls for further investigation into new cannabis formulations specifically designed to leverage the potential protective effects of the terpene.”
This research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Vandrey served as a consultant or received honoraria from Mira1a Therapeutics, Inc.; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Charlotte’s Web; Syqe Medical Ltd.; and WebMD. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Lile declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper reported receiving study drug from Canopy Growth Corp and True Terpenes, study-related materials from Storz & Bickel, and research support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, California Department of Cannabis Control, Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, and California Highway Patrol.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data from a small study suggested.
Participants who inhaled vaporized D-limonene and THC reported significantly greater decreases in anxiogenic effects than did people who received either component alone or a placebo. Reductions were greater as the dose of the D-limonene was increased.
Investigators noted that the findings could have implications for the use of medicinal or recreational cannabis, which has increased in recent years due to state legalization efforts.
“People use cannabis to help reduce anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder, but since THC levels vary widely, if a person overshoots their tolerance of THC, cannabis can induce anxiety rather than relieve it,” senior investigator Ryan Vandrey, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a news release.
“Our study demonstrates that D-limonene can modulate the effects of THC in a meaningful way and make THC more tolerable to people using it for both therapeutic and non-therapeutic purposes,” he added.
The study was published online in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Entourage Theory
Cannabis legalization has opened the door to an increased range of medicinal and nonmedicinal uses, but its benefits can be limited by the anxiety and panic some people experience with its use, investigators noted.
Many cannabis plants have been bred to contain higher concentrations of THC, with some dispensaries selling cannabis with more than 20%-30% THC. The plants often include cannabidiol, “minor” cannabinoids, and terpenes, such as D-limonene.
Prior studies pointed to THC as the cause of acute behavioral and psychoactive effects some cannabis users experience. However, a new, untested theory, the “cannabis entourage effect theory,” suggested other components in cannabis, including D-limonene, may contribute to the anxiogenic symptoms.
“We were motivated by scientific publications that hypothesized D-limonene can attenuate the acute anxiogenic effects of cannabis, but for which empirical data did not exist,” Dr. Vandrey said.
Investigators designed a small double-blind, within-subjects crossover study of 20 healthy adults (median age, 26 years; 50% men). About half of participants were Caucasian/non-Hispanic, 30% African American/non-Hispanic, 10% Caucasian/Hispanic, and 10% Asian/non-Hispanic.
All participants completed nine outpatient drug administration sessions, during which they inhaled vaporized D-limonene alone (1 or 5 mg), THC alone (15 or 30 mg), the same doses of THC and D-limonene together, or placebo.
Primary outcomes included subjective drug effects, measured with the Drug Effect Questionnaire (DEQ) and the 20-item state subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S). Investigators also measured cognitive/psychomotor performance with the Digit Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) and the Paced Serial Addition Task.
Vital signs such as heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and plasma D-limonene and THC concentrations were also tracked.
Participants’ responses were measured at baseline and then an additional nine times after initial exposure over the course of each 6-hour test session. Blood and urine samples were collected from participants before, during, and after each session.
First Evidence
There were no significant differences in outcomes between the D-limonene alone and placebo groups.
Receipt of 15- and 30-mg doses of THC alone was associated with subjective reports of acute cannabis exposure, including cognitive and physiological effects.
A treatment effect was observed for “anxious/nervous” (P < .01), “paranoid” (P < .01), and “heart racing” (P < .0001).
In planned comparisons, ratings of anxiety-like subjective effects qualitatively decreased as D-limonene dose increased, and concurrent administration of 30-mg THC plus 15-mg D-limonene significantly reduced ratings of “anxious/nervous” and “paranoid” on the DEQ compared to 30 mg of THC alone (P < .05).
Findings were similar on the composite score of the STAI-S, and although planned comparisons did not reach the threshold for statistical significance, reductions in anxiety approached significance in the THC plus D-limonene group compared with the THC alone condition (P = .08). The combination group also reported significantly lower subjective ratings of unpleasant drug effects than the THC alone group (P = .03).
In particular, a main effect of treatment was found for the anxious/nervous category on the DEQ (P < .01), as well as the “paranoid” (P < .01) and heart racing (P < .0001) categories.
On the other hand, ratings of anxious/nervous and paranoid categories were significantly lower in the 30-mg THC plus 15-mg D-limonene vs the 30-mg THC alone condition (P < .05, for all).
As for cognition, following drug administration, a significant main effect of treatment was observed for the DSST (P < .05), but no significant differences between THC and THC plus D-limonene combination conditions or between D-limonene alone and placebo were detected.
There were no differences within each THC dose and between D-limonene alone versus placebo conditions. Moreover, there were no main effects of treatment found for SBP or DBP.
The combination condition produced significantly greater concentrations of THC than the THC alone condition (P < .05).
“This study provides the first evidence that there are chemical constituents found naturally in the cannabis plant that can reduce some of the adverse effects of using delta-9-THC,” Dr. Vandrey said.
Although the exact mechanism by which vaporized D-limonene counters the anxiogenic effects of THC is unclear, “our best guess is that D-limonene is producing an anxiolytic effect on its own that is not mediated by cannabinoid receptors,” Dr. Vandrey said.
Significant Impact
Commenting on the research, Joshua Lile, PhD, professor, Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, noted that the study seems to be the first of its kind to study the influence of terpene on THC response.
The research “makes a significant impact on our field,” and is “among the few controlled clinical studies that have demonstrated interactions between THC and other cannabis constituents, supporting the validity of the ‘entourage’ effect,” said Dr. Lile, who was not involved with the current research.
“This work is particularly important, given the unfounded claims sometimes made by the cannabis industry regarding the effects of different cannabis products,” he added.
Also commenting on the study, Ziva Cooper, PhD, professor and director of the UCLA Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids, University of California Los Angeles, said the findings “have direct implications for improving the safety of cannabis, whether it’s being used for medical or nonmedical purposes, especially in people and patients who do not have experience with cannabis, a group that is at high risk for experiencing anxiety after using cannabis.”
In addition, “an important aspect to this study is that the effects of limonene in reducing anxiety attributed to delta-9-THC were observed at higher concentrations (or doses) than those usually present in the plant,” Dr. Copper said. “This calls for further investigation into new cannabis formulations specifically designed to leverage the potential protective effects of the terpene.”
This research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Vandrey served as a consultant or received honoraria from Mira1a Therapeutics, Inc.; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Charlotte’s Web; Syqe Medical Ltd.; and WebMD. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Lile declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper reported receiving study drug from Canopy Growth Corp and True Terpenes, study-related materials from Storz & Bickel, and research support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, California Department of Cannabis Control, Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, and California Highway Patrol.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
From Drug and Alcohol Dependence
‘Difficult Patient’: Stigmatizing Words and Medical Error
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”
As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.
And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.
For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”
This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”
Stay with me.
We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.
In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.
Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.
Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.
Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.
Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.
Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”
As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.
And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.
For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”
This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”
Stay with me.
We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.
In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.
Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.
Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.
Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.
Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.
Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”
As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.
And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.
For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”
This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”
Stay with me.
We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.
In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.
Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.
Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.
Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.
Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.
Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.