Neurology Reviews

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

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

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

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

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) embraced the use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in its most recent guidance on developing therapeutics for early Alzheimer’s disease.

The agency’s draft guidance is the first update since 2018 for products aimed at the earliest stages of the disease, which the FDA defines as stages 1, 2, and 3. Such guidance — when it is made final, after public comment closes in mid-May — is considered a template that will guide discussions between the FDA and drug makers and help determine the structure of clinical trials.

It is considered the FDA’s “current thinking on the topic,” and should not be construed as “legally enforceable responsibilities,” the FDA document, which was published March 12, noted.

In a statement to this news agency, the Alzheimer’s Association said it “is fully supportive of the FDA’s revised draft guidance.”

The association is enthusiastic about the agency’s encouragement of “the use of biologically based diagnostic criteria that are grounded in a contemporary understanding of the pathophysiology and evolution” of Alzheimer’s disease, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in the statement.

Dr. Edelmayer noted that an Alzheimer’s Association work group is “leading the process of defining and building consensus for biologically based diagnostic and staging criteria for Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A New POV

The FDA noted that “it is expected that biomarker evidence of disease will establish the reliable diagnosis of subjects in trials of early Alzheimer’s disease.” This is crucial when many individuals in the earliest phases of Alzheimer’s disease may have mild cognitive decline but no functional decline, the agency added.

In 2018, the FDA suggested that biomarker evidence of disease might only play a role in identifying trial participants but should not be a defining element. 

In another shift away from 2018 guidance, the FDA gave more credence to surrogate endpoints as measures of a drug’s efficacy for early disease.

“Surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints that do not directly measure clinical benefit but that are considered reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit may support an accelerated approval,” the agency noted. 

The FDA added that it “has considered a reduction of the brain amyloid beta burden, as assessed by positron emission tomography, to be a surrogate endpoint that is ‘reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit,’ ” noting that this endpoint was used as a basis for accelerated approval for the monoclonal antibodies lecanemab (Leqembi) and aducanumab (Aduhelm).

“The FDA has determined there is substantial evidence that reduction of amyloid beta plaques in the brain is reasonably likely to predict important clinical benefits to patients,” said Dr. Edelmayer, adding the agency’s “determination is correct.”

However, she noted, “’reasonably likely’ is not a guarantee, and long-term, real-world data in representative populations is required to provide more conclusive evidence,” which is why the FDA requires post-approval studies for accelerated approvals. 
 

A Faster Pathway to Approval 

The agency noted that clinical outcomes should also be measured in trials of products seeking accelerated approval, “to assess early clinical changes that may potentially provide support for any changes observed on biomarkers.”

Indeed, it’s not always a slam-dunk for drugs that may show positive effects on biomarkers. The FDA is taking a closer look at donanemab for early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. Patients were enrolled based on PET-positive amyloid or tau, but efficacy was evaluated based on cognition and functional measures. 

Earlier this month the agency postponed an approval decision and instead will convene an advisory panel meeting to assess overall safety and efficacy and the unique trial design, which allowed patients to stop treatment based on amyloid levels.

The FDA emphasized throughout its guidance document that it is trying to find a faster pathway to approval for therapies for early Alzheimer’s disease. If conventional approaches for testing therapeutics were used in early disease it might “take longer to establish a clinically meaningful treatment effect” because of the “minimal or absent cognitive and functional deficits seen in those stages of the disease,” the agency wrote.

The use of surrogate endpoints “may allow for shorter trial durations,” the FDA added. 

Dr. Edelmayer applauded the agency’s efforts to shorten the process. “Finding ways to make the trials shorter and easier to conduct, without sacrificing scientific rigor or patient safety, is a very worthwhile thing to do,” she said.

The FDA noted that a key principle in developing guidance for early Alzheimer’s disease therapies is that treatment “must begin before there are overt clinical symptoms.” 

“We enthusiastically support this idea,” said Dr. Edelmeyer. “Prevention of Alzheimer’s dementia is possible through changing the course, stopping the progression, and eventually interrupting the causes of the disease, most likely through a combination of lifestyle/behavior choices and pharmaceutical intervention,” she added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) embraced the use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in its most recent guidance on developing therapeutics for early Alzheimer’s disease.

The agency’s draft guidance is the first update since 2018 for products aimed at the earliest stages of the disease, which the FDA defines as stages 1, 2, and 3. Such guidance — when it is made final, after public comment closes in mid-May — is considered a template that will guide discussions between the FDA and drug makers and help determine the structure of clinical trials.

It is considered the FDA’s “current thinking on the topic,” and should not be construed as “legally enforceable responsibilities,” the FDA document, which was published March 12, noted.

In a statement to this news agency, the Alzheimer’s Association said it “is fully supportive of the FDA’s revised draft guidance.”

The association is enthusiastic about the agency’s encouragement of “the use of biologically based diagnostic criteria that are grounded in a contemporary understanding of the pathophysiology and evolution” of Alzheimer’s disease, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in the statement.

Dr. Edelmayer noted that an Alzheimer’s Association work group is “leading the process of defining and building consensus for biologically based diagnostic and staging criteria for Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A New POV

The FDA noted that “it is expected that biomarker evidence of disease will establish the reliable diagnosis of subjects in trials of early Alzheimer’s disease.” This is crucial when many individuals in the earliest phases of Alzheimer’s disease may have mild cognitive decline but no functional decline, the agency added.

In 2018, the FDA suggested that biomarker evidence of disease might only play a role in identifying trial participants but should not be a defining element. 

In another shift away from 2018 guidance, the FDA gave more credence to surrogate endpoints as measures of a drug’s efficacy for early disease.

“Surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints that do not directly measure clinical benefit but that are considered reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit may support an accelerated approval,” the agency noted. 

The FDA added that it “has considered a reduction of the brain amyloid beta burden, as assessed by positron emission tomography, to be a surrogate endpoint that is ‘reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit,’ ” noting that this endpoint was used as a basis for accelerated approval for the monoclonal antibodies lecanemab (Leqembi) and aducanumab (Aduhelm).

“The FDA has determined there is substantial evidence that reduction of amyloid beta plaques in the brain is reasonably likely to predict important clinical benefits to patients,” said Dr. Edelmayer, adding the agency’s “determination is correct.”

However, she noted, “’reasonably likely’ is not a guarantee, and long-term, real-world data in representative populations is required to provide more conclusive evidence,” which is why the FDA requires post-approval studies for accelerated approvals. 
 

A Faster Pathway to Approval 

The agency noted that clinical outcomes should also be measured in trials of products seeking accelerated approval, “to assess early clinical changes that may potentially provide support for any changes observed on biomarkers.”

Indeed, it’s not always a slam-dunk for drugs that may show positive effects on biomarkers. The FDA is taking a closer look at donanemab for early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. Patients were enrolled based on PET-positive amyloid or tau, but efficacy was evaluated based on cognition and functional measures. 

Earlier this month the agency postponed an approval decision and instead will convene an advisory panel meeting to assess overall safety and efficacy and the unique trial design, which allowed patients to stop treatment based on amyloid levels.

The FDA emphasized throughout its guidance document that it is trying to find a faster pathway to approval for therapies for early Alzheimer’s disease. If conventional approaches for testing therapeutics were used in early disease it might “take longer to establish a clinically meaningful treatment effect” because of the “minimal or absent cognitive and functional deficits seen in those stages of the disease,” the agency wrote.

The use of surrogate endpoints “may allow for shorter trial durations,” the FDA added. 

Dr. Edelmayer applauded the agency’s efforts to shorten the process. “Finding ways to make the trials shorter and easier to conduct, without sacrificing scientific rigor or patient safety, is a very worthwhile thing to do,” she said.

The FDA noted that a key principle in developing guidance for early Alzheimer’s disease therapies is that treatment “must begin before there are overt clinical symptoms.” 

“We enthusiastically support this idea,” said Dr. Edelmeyer. “Prevention of Alzheimer’s dementia is possible through changing the course, stopping the progression, and eventually interrupting the causes of the disease, most likely through a combination of lifestyle/behavior choices and pharmaceutical intervention,” she added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) embraced the use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in its most recent guidance on developing therapeutics for early Alzheimer’s disease.

The agency’s draft guidance is the first update since 2018 for products aimed at the earliest stages of the disease, which the FDA defines as stages 1, 2, and 3. Such guidance — when it is made final, after public comment closes in mid-May — is considered a template that will guide discussions between the FDA and drug makers and help determine the structure of clinical trials.

It is considered the FDA’s “current thinking on the topic,” and should not be construed as “legally enforceable responsibilities,” the FDA document, which was published March 12, noted.

In a statement to this news agency, the Alzheimer’s Association said it “is fully supportive of the FDA’s revised draft guidance.”

The association is enthusiastic about the agency’s encouragement of “the use of biologically based diagnostic criteria that are grounded in a contemporary understanding of the pathophysiology and evolution” of Alzheimer’s disease, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in the statement.

Dr. Edelmayer noted that an Alzheimer’s Association work group is “leading the process of defining and building consensus for biologically based diagnostic and staging criteria for Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A New POV

The FDA noted that “it is expected that biomarker evidence of disease will establish the reliable diagnosis of subjects in trials of early Alzheimer’s disease.” This is crucial when many individuals in the earliest phases of Alzheimer’s disease may have mild cognitive decline but no functional decline, the agency added.

In 2018, the FDA suggested that biomarker evidence of disease might only play a role in identifying trial participants but should not be a defining element. 

In another shift away from 2018 guidance, the FDA gave more credence to surrogate endpoints as measures of a drug’s efficacy for early disease.

“Surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints that do not directly measure clinical benefit but that are considered reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit may support an accelerated approval,” the agency noted. 

The FDA added that it “has considered a reduction of the brain amyloid beta burden, as assessed by positron emission tomography, to be a surrogate endpoint that is ‘reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit,’ ” noting that this endpoint was used as a basis for accelerated approval for the monoclonal antibodies lecanemab (Leqembi) and aducanumab (Aduhelm).

“The FDA has determined there is substantial evidence that reduction of amyloid beta plaques in the brain is reasonably likely to predict important clinical benefits to patients,” said Dr. Edelmayer, adding the agency’s “determination is correct.”

However, she noted, “’reasonably likely’ is not a guarantee, and long-term, real-world data in representative populations is required to provide more conclusive evidence,” which is why the FDA requires post-approval studies for accelerated approvals. 
 

A Faster Pathway to Approval 

The agency noted that clinical outcomes should also be measured in trials of products seeking accelerated approval, “to assess early clinical changes that may potentially provide support for any changes observed on biomarkers.”

Indeed, it’s not always a slam-dunk for drugs that may show positive effects on biomarkers. The FDA is taking a closer look at donanemab for early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. Patients were enrolled based on PET-positive amyloid or tau, but efficacy was evaluated based on cognition and functional measures. 

Earlier this month the agency postponed an approval decision and instead will convene an advisory panel meeting to assess overall safety and efficacy and the unique trial design, which allowed patients to stop treatment based on amyloid levels.

The FDA emphasized throughout its guidance document that it is trying to find a faster pathway to approval for therapies for early Alzheimer’s disease. If conventional approaches for testing therapeutics were used in early disease it might “take longer to establish a clinically meaningful treatment effect” because of the “minimal or absent cognitive and functional deficits seen in those stages of the disease,” the agency wrote.

The use of surrogate endpoints “may allow for shorter trial durations,” the FDA added. 

Dr. Edelmayer applauded the agency’s efforts to shorten the process. “Finding ways to make the trials shorter and easier to conduct, without sacrificing scientific rigor or patient safety, is a very worthwhile thing to do,” she said.

The FDA noted that a key principle in developing guidance for early Alzheimer’s disease therapies is that treatment “must begin before there are overt clinical symptoms.” 

“We enthusiastically support this idea,” said Dr. Edelmeyer. “Prevention of Alzheimer’s dementia is possible through changing the course, stopping the progression, and eventually interrupting the causes of the disease, most likely through a combination of lifestyle/behavior choices and pharmaceutical intervention,” she added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged men at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), higher pancreatic fat is linked to lower cognition and brain volumes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a well-known risk factor for poorer cognition and dementia, but the distribution of body fat may influence the risk and underlying mechanisms in the fat-brain-cognition pathway.
• The study examined associations of several abdominal fat depots with cognitive functioning and AD-related brain volumes.
• The study sample included 204 men and women from the Israel Registry for Alzheimer’s Prevention (mean age, 59 years; 60% women) who had a high AD risk due to parental family history.
• Abdominal MRI scans assessed fat stored as subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) beneath the skin, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) around abdominal organs, and ectopic, a harmful condition in which lipids accumulate in lean tissues such as the liver and pancreas.
• A structural volumetric brain MRI scan was undertaken by 142 participants to assess specific regions implicated in chosen previous research.

TAKEAWAY:

• High body mass index was associated with high pancreatic fat percentage in both men and women (P < .001) and with high SAT percentage in women (P = .01) but not with VAT percentage in either sex.
• After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors, a higher pancreatic fat percentage was linked to lower global cognition (beta, −0.33; P = .02) and executive function (beta, −0.32; P = .02) in men, and with lower hippocampal volume in women (beta, −0.25; P = .03).
• In men only, a higher SAT percentage was associated with a lower middle frontal gyrus volume (beta, −0.27; P = .03), while a higher VAT percentage was linked to higher middle frontal gyrus (beta, 0.29; P = .03) and superior frontal gyrus volumes (beta, 0.31; P = .02).
• Hepatic fat was not associated with brain volumes or cognition in either men or women.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that already in midlife, abdominal fat accumulation may have deleterious effects on brain health, especially in men,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sapir G. Shekhtman, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, and published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).

LIMITATIONS:

No causal inferences could be drawn from this study due to its cross-sectional nature. It did not represent the population of middle-aged adults as a whole, but rather those at high risk of developing AD. Factors contributing to fat accumulation, such as menopausal status or treatment, inflammation, insulin resistance, daily exercise, and dietary factors, were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged men at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), higher pancreatic fat is linked to lower cognition and brain volumes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a well-known risk factor for poorer cognition and dementia, but the distribution of body fat may influence the risk and underlying mechanisms in the fat-brain-cognition pathway.
• The study examined associations of several abdominal fat depots with cognitive functioning and AD-related brain volumes.
• The study sample included 204 men and women from the Israel Registry for Alzheimer’s Prevention (mean age, 59 years; 60% women) who had a high AD risk due to parental family history.
• Abdominal MRI scans assessed fat stored as subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) beneath the skin, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) around abdominal organs, and ectopic, a harmful condition in which lipids accumulate in lean tissues such as the liver and pancreas.
• A structural volumetric brain MRI scan was undertaken by 142 participants to assess specific regions implicated in chosen previous research.

TAKEAWAY:

• High body mass index was associated with high pancreatic fat percentage in both men and women (P < .001) and with high SAT percentage in women (P = .01) but not with VAT percentage in either sex.
• After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors, a higher pancreatic fat percentage was linked to lower global cognition (beta, −0.33; P = .02) and executive function (beta, −0.32; P = .02) in men, and with lower hippocampal volume in women (beta, −0.25; P = .03).
• In men only, a higher SAT percentage was associated with a lower middle frontal gyrus volume (beta, −0.27; P = .03), while a higher VAT percentage was linked to higher middle frontal gyrus (beta, 0.29; P = .03) and superior frontal gyrus volumes (beta, 0.31; P = .02).
• Hepatic fat was not associated with brain volumes or cognition in either men or women.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that already in midlife, abdominal fat accumulation may have deleterious effects on brain health, especially in men,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sapir G. Shekhtman, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, and published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).

LIMITATIONS:

No causal inferences could be drawn from this study due to its cross-sectional nature. It did not represent the population of middle-aged adults as a whole, but rather those at high risk of developing AD. Factors contributing to fat accumulation, such as menopausal status or treatment, inflammation, insulin resistance, daily exercise, and dietary factors, were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged men at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), higher pancreatic fat is linked to lower cognition and brain volumes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a well-known risk factor for poorer cognition and dementia, but the distribution of body fat may influence the risk and underlying mechanisms in the fat-brain-cognition pathway.
• The study examined associations of several abdominal fat depots with cognitive functioning and AD-related brain volumes.
• The study sample included 204 men and women from the Israel Registry for Alzheimer’s Prevention (mean age, 59 years; 60% women) who had a high AD risk due to parental family history.
• Abdominal MRI scans assessed fat stored as subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) beneath the skin, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) around abdominal organs, and ectopic, a harmful condition in which lipids accumulate in lean tissues such as the liver and pancreas.
• A structural volumetric brain MRI scan was undertaken by 142 participants to assess specific regions implicated in chosen previous research.

TAKEAWAY:

• High body mass index was associated with high pancreatic fat percentage in both men and women (P < .001) and with high SAT percentage in women (P = .01) but not with VAT percentage in either sex.
• After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors, a higher pancreatic fat percentage was linked to lower global cognition (beta, −0.33; P = .02) and executive function (beta, −0.32; P = .02) in men, and with lower hippocampal volume in women (beta, −0.25; P = .03).
• In men only, a higher SAT percentage was associated with a lower middle frontal gyrus volume (beta, −0.27; P = .03), while a higher VAT percentage was linked to higher middle frontal gyrus (beta, 0.29; P = .03) and superior frontal gyrus volumes (beta, 0.31; P = .02).
• Hepatic fat was not associated with brain volumes or cognition in either men or women.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that already in midlife, abdominal fat accumulation may have deleterious effects on brain health, especially in men,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sapir G. Shekhtman, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, and published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).

LIMITATIONS:

No causal inferences could be drawn from this study due to its cross-sectional nature. It did not represent the population of middle-aged adults as a whole, but rather those at high risk of developing AD. Factors contributing to fat accumulation, such as menopausal status or treatment, inflammation, insulin resistance, daily exercise, and dietary factors, were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Recently, Acadia Pharmaceuticals announced it was stopping trials on Nuplazid for indications outside of Parkinson’s disease psychosis.

I was impressed with what I saw in my office. Although I know there’s some controversy over the drug, the majority of studies do show efficacy, and in my little practice I clearly noticed improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who’d previously failed the more standard agents (note - I have no financial affiliation with Acadia Pharmaceuticals).

So, as a lay-neurologist, I expected the drug to work for other kinds of psychosis, particularly Alzheimer’s disease. All of us in practice know how much we need new options for that.

But when the clinical trials came, the drug didn’t work. It didn’t work for schizophrenia, either, Finally, Acadia threw in the towel and gave up.

I have no idea what happened. I’m sure others are wondering the same thing. On paper, I’d have thought it would work for Alzheimer’s psychosis, but in the real world it didn’t.

Is psychosis between the two disorders that different, with different neurotransmitter causes? Are the benefits in my patients with Parkinson’s disease really just from my own selection bias? Or is there just a lot we still don’t know?

Medicine, unfortunately, is littered with ideas that should have worked, but either didn’t, or at least aren’t as good as we thought they should have been. Look at the graveyard full of amyloid-targeting drugs. Yeah, I know Leqembi is out there, and donanemab is in the wings, but are they anywhere near as good as we thought they’d be? Not at all.

At the same time, we’ve been waiting for the BTK drugs (not to be confused with a Korean pop band) for multiple sclerosis. They sounded like they were the Next Big Thing.

They may be, but recent data on one of them, evobrutinib, was less than encouraging. Of course, that shouldn’t extrapolate to the group as a whole, but it does leave you wondering why.

Medicine is always improving, but it’s also still a trial-and-error process. Just because something should work doesn’t mean it will, and it may be years before we know why.

It’s just a reminder that, here in 2024, we still have a lot to learn.
 

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

Recently, Acadia Pharmaceuticals announced it was stopping trials on Nuplazid for indications outside of Parkinson’s disease psychosis.

I was impressed with what I saw in my office. Although I know there’s some controversy over the drug, the majority of studies do show efficacy, and in my little practice I clearly noticed improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who’d previously failed the more standard agents (note - I have no financial affiliation with Acadia Pharmaceuticals).

So, as a lay-neurologist, I expected the drug to work for other kinds of psychosis, particularly Alzheimer’s disease. All of us in practice know how much we need new options for that.

But when the clinical trials came, the drug didn’t work. It didn’t work for schizophrenia, either, Finally, Acadia threw in the towel and gave up.

I have no idea what happened. I’m sure others are wondering the same thing. On paper, I’d have thought it would work for Alzheimer’s psychosis, but in the real world it didn’t.

Is psychosis between the two disorders that different, with different neurotransmitter causes? Are the benefits in my patients with Parkinson’s disease really just from my own selection bias? Or is there just a lot we still don’t know?

Medicine, unfortunately, is littered with ideas that should have worked, but either didn’t, or at least aren’t as good as we thought they should have been. Look at the graveyard full of amyloid-targeting drugs. Yeah, I know Leqembi is out there, and donanemab is in the wings, but are they anywhere near as good as we thought they’d be? Not at all.

At the same time, we’ve been waiting for the BTK drugs (not to be confused with a Korean pop band) for multiple sclerosis. They sounded like they were the Next Big Thing.

They may be, but recent data on one of them, evobrutinib, was less than encouraging. Of course, that shouldn’t extrapolate to the group as a whole, but it does leave you wondering why.

Medicine is always improving, but it’s also still a trial-and-error process. Just because something should work doesn’t mean it will, and it may be years before we know why.

It’s just a reminder that, here in 2024, we still have a lot to learn.
 

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

Recently, Acadia Pharmaceuticals announced it was stopping trials on Nuplazid for indications outside of Parkinson’s disease psychosis.

I was impressed with what I saw in my office. Although I know there’s some controversy over the drug, the majority of studies do show efficacy, and in my little practice I clearly noticed improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who’d previously failed the more standard agents (note - I have no financial affiliation with Acadia Pharmaceuticals).

So, as a lay-neurologist, I expected the drug to work for other kinds of psychosis, particularly Alzheimer’s disease. All of us in practice know how much we need new options for that.

But when the clinical trials came, the drug didn’t work. It didn’t work for schizophrenia, either, Finally, Acadia threw in the towel and gave up.

I have no idea what happened. I’m sure others are wondering the same thing. On paper, I’d have thought it would work for Alzheimer’s psychosis, but in the real world it didn’t.

Is psychosis between the two disorders that different, with different neurotransmitter causes? Are the benefits in my patients with Parkinson’s disease really just from my own selection bias? Or is there just a lot we still don’t know?

Medicine, unfortunately, is littered with ideas that should have worked, but either didn’t, or at least aren’t as good as we thought they should have been. Look at the graveyard full of amyloid-targeting drugs. Yeah, I know Leqembi is out there, and donanemab is in the wings, but are they anywhere near as good as we thought they’d be? Not at all.

At the same time, we’ve been waiting for the BTK drugs (not to be confused with a Korean pop band) for multiple sclerosis. They sounded like they were the Next Big Thing.

They may be, but recent data on one of them, evobrutinib, was less than encouraging. Of course, that shouldn’t extrapolate to the group as a whole, but it does leave you wondering why.

Medicine is always improving, but it’s also still a trial-and-error process. Just because something should work doesn’t mean it will, and it may be years before we know why.

It’s just a reminder that, here in 2024, we still have a lot to learn.
 

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

Cervical manipulations have been associated with vascular complications. While the incidence of carotid dissections does not seem to have increased, the question remains open for vertebral artery injuries. We must remain vigilant!

Resorting to joint manipulation for neck pain is not unusual. Currently, cervical manipulation remains a popular first-line treatment for cervicodynia or headaches. Although evidence exists showing that specific joint mobilization can improve this type of symptomatology, there is a possibility that it may risk damaging the cervical arteries and causing ischemic stroke through arterial dissection.

Epidemiologically, internal carotid artery dissection is a relatively rare event with an estimated annual incidence of 1.72 per 100,000 individuals (those most likely to be diagnosed being obviously those leading to hospitalization for stroke) but represents one of the most common causes of stroke in young and middle-aged adults. Faced with case reports that may raise concerns and hypotheses about an associated risk, two studies have sought to delve into the issue.
 

No Increased Carotid Risk Identified

The first study, of a case-cross design, identified all incident cases of ischemic stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery admitted to the hospital over a 9-year period using administrative healthcare data, the cases being used as their own control by sampling control periods before the date of the index stroke. Thus, 15,523 cases were compared with 62,092 control periods using exposure windows of 1, 3, 7, and 14 days before the stroke. The study also compared post-medical consultation and post-chiropractic consultation outcomes, knowing that as a first-line for complaints of neck pain or headache, patients often turn to one of these two types of primary care clinicians.

However, data analysis shows, among subjects aged under 45 years, positive associations for both different consultations in cases of subsequent carotid stroke (but no association for those aged over 45 years). These associations tended to increase when analyses were limited to visits for diagnoses of neck pain and headaches. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between risk estimates after chiropractic or general medical consultation.

A notable limitation of this work is that it did not focus on strokes due to vertebral artery dissections that run through the transverse foramina of the cervical vertebrae.
 

A Screening Test Lacking Precision

More recently, the International Federation of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists has looked into the subject to refine the assessment of the risk for vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy/osteopathy care for neck pain and/or headaches. Through a cross-sectional study involving 150 patients, it tested a vascular complication risk index (from high to low grade, based on history taking and clinical examination), developed to estimate the risk for the presence of vascular rather than musculoskeletal pathology, to determine whether or not there is a contraindication to cervical manipulation.

However, the developed index had only low sensitivity (0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61) and moderate specificity (0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75), knowing that the reference test was a consensus medical decision made by a vascular neurologist, an interventional neurologist, and a neuroradiologist (based on clinical data and cervical MRI). Similarly, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low at 1.36 (95% CI, 0.93-1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05), respectively.

In conclusion, the data from the case-cross study did not seem to demonstrate an excess risk for stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery after cervical joint manipulations. Associations between cervical manipulation sessions or medical consultations and carotid strokes appear similar and could have been due to the fact that patients with early symptoms related to arterial dissection seek care before developing their stroke.

However, it is regrettable that the study did not focus on vertebral artery dissections, which are anatomically more exposed to cervical chiropractic sessions. Nevertheless, because indices defined from joint tests and medical history are insufficient to identify patients “at risk or in the process of arterial dissection,” and because stroke can result in severe disability, practitioners managing patients with neck pain cannot take this type of complication lightly.

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

Cervical manipulations have been associated with vascular complications. While the incidence of carotid dissections does not seem to have increased, the question remains open for vertebral artery injuries. We must remain vigilant!

Resorting to joint manipulation for neck pain is not unusual. Currently, cervical manipulation remains a popular first-line treatment for cervicodynia or headaches. Although evidence exists showing that specific joint mobilization can improve this type of symptomatology, there is a possibility that it may risk damaging the cervical arteries and causing ischemic stroke through arterial dissection.

Epidemiologically, internal carotid artery dissection is a relatively rare event with an estimated annual incidence of 1.72 per 100,000 individuals (those most likely to be diagnosed being obviously those leading to hospitalization for stroke) but represents one of the most common causes of stroke in young and middle-aged adults. Faced with case reports that may raise concerns and hypotheses about an associated risk, two studies have sought to delve into the issue.
 

No Increased Carotid Risk Identified

The first study, of a case-cross design, identified all incident cases of ischemic stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery admitted to the hospital over a 9-year period using administrative healthcare data, the cases being used as their own control by sampling control periods before the date of the index stroke. Thus, 15,523 cases were compared with 62,092 control periods using exposure windows of 1, 3, 7, and 14 days before the stroke. The study also compared post-medical consultation and post-chiropractic consultation outcomes, knowing that as a first-line for complaints of neck pain or headache, patients often turn to one of these two types of primary care clinicians.

However, data analysis shows, among subjects aged under 45 years, positive associations for both different consultations in cases of subsequent carotid stroke (but no association for those aged over 45 years). These associations tended to increase when analyses were limited to visits for diagnoses of neck pain and headaches. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between risk estimates after chiropractic or general medical consultation.

A notable limitation of this work is that it did not focus on strokes due to vertebral artery dissections that run through the transverse foramina of the cervical vertebrae.
 

A Screening Test Lacking Precision

More recently, the International Federation of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists has looked into the subject to refine the assessment of the risk for vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy/osteopathy care for neck pain and/or headaches. Through a cross-sectional study involving 150 patients, it tested a vascular complication risk index (from high to low grade, based on history taking and clinical examination), developed to estimate the risk for the presence of vascular rather than musculoskeletal pathology, to determine whether or not there is a contraindication to cervical manipulation.

However, the developed index had only low sensitivity (0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61) and moderate specificity (0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75), knowing that the reference test was a consensus medical decision made by a vascular neurologist, an interventional neurologist, and a neuroradiologist (based on clinical data and cervical MRI). Similarly, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low at 1.36 (95% CI, 0.93-1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05), respectively.

In conclusion, the data from the case-cross study did not seem to demonstrate an excess risk for stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery after cervical joint manipulations. Associations between cervical manipulation sessions or medical consultations and carotid strokes appear similar and could have been due to the fact that patients with early symptoms related to arterial dissection seek care before developing their stroke.

However, it is regrettable that the study did not focus on vertebral artery dissections, which are anatomically more exposed to cervical chiropractic sessions. Nevertheless, because indices defined from joint tests and medical history are insufficient to identify patients “at risk or in the process of arterial dissection,” and because stroke can result in severe disability, practitioners managing patients with neck pain cannot take this type of complication lightly.

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

Cervical manipulations have been associated with vascular complications. While the incidence of carotid dissections does not seem to have increased, the question remains open for vertebral artery injuries. We must remain vigilant!

Resorting to joint manipulation for neck pain is not unusual. Currently, cervical manipulation remains a popular first-line treatment for cervicodynia or headaches. Although evidence exists showing that specific joint mobilization can improve this type of symptomatology, there is a possibility that it may risk damaging the cervical arteries and causing ischemic stroke through arterial dissection.

Epidemiologically, internal carotid artery dissection is a relatively rare event with an estimated annual incidence of 1.72 per 100,000 individuals (those most likely to be diagnosed being obviously those leading to hospitalization for stroke) but represents one of the most common causes of stroke in young and middle-aged adults. Faced with case reports that may raise concerns and hypotheses about an associated risk, two studies have sought to delve into the issue.
 

No Increased Carotid Risk Identified

The first study, of a case-cross design, identified all incident cases of ischemic stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery admitted to the hospital over a 9-year period using administrative healthcare data, the cases being used as their own control by sampling control periods before the date of the index stroke. Thus, 15,523 cases were compared with 62,092 control periods using exposure windows of 1, 3, 7, and 14 days before the stroke. The study also compared post-medical consultation and post-chiropractic consultation outcomes, knowing that as a first-line for complaints of neck pain or headache, patients often turn to one of these two types of primary care clinicians.

However, data analysis shows, among subjects aged under 45 years, positive associations for both different consultations in cases of subsequent carotid stroke (but no association for those aged over 45 years). These associations tended to increase when analyses were limited to visits for diagnoses of neck pain and headaches. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between risk estimates after chiropractic or general medical consultation.

A notable limitation of this work is that it did not focus on strokes due to vertebral artery dissections that run through the transverse foramina of the cervical vertebrae.
 

A Screening Test Lacking Precision

More recently, the International Federation of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists has looked into the subject to refine the assessment of the risk for vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy/osteopathy care for neck pain and/or headaches. Through a cross-sectional study involving 150 patients, it tested a vascular complication risk index (from high to low grade, based on history taking and clinical examination), developed to estimate the risk for the presence of vascular rather than musculoskeletal pathology, to determine whether or not there is a contraindication to cervical manipulation.

However, the developed index had only low sensitivity (0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61) and moderate specificity (0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75), knowing that the reference test was a consensus medical decision made by a vascular neurologist, an interventional neurologist, and a neuroradiologist (based on clinical data and cervical MRI). Similarly, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low at 1.36 (95% CI, 0.93-1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05), respectively.

In conclusion, the data from the case-cross study did not seem to demonstrate an excess risk for stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery after cervical joint manipulations. Associations between cervical manipulation sessions or medical consultations and carotid strokes appear similar and could have been due to the fact that patients with early symptoms related to arterial dissection seek care before developing their stroke.

However, it is regrettable that the study did not focus on vertebral artery dissections, which are anatomically more exposed to cervical chiropractic sessions. Nevertheless, because indices defined from joint tests and medical history are insufficient to identify patients “at risk or in the process of arterial dissection,” and because stroke can result in severe disability, practitioners managing patients with neck pain cannot take this type of complication lightly.

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

TOPLINE:

New research shows increased screen time in children aged 12-36 months is associated with reduced verbal interactions between toddlers and their parents, which in turn could affect language development. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included data from 220 families in Australia.
• Researchers used advanced speech recognition technology to capture children’s screen time and language environment at home during a 16-hour window every 6 months.
• They adjusted for variables such as the sex of the child, the education level of the mother, and psychological distress in the primary caregiver.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Increases in screen time were associated with decreases in words spoken near children by adults, vocalizations by children, and back-and-forth interactions between adults and children. This correlation was especially notable at age 36 months.
• At age 36 months, each additional minute of screen time was linked to children hearing 6.6 fewer adult words, making 4.9 fewer vocalizations, and participating in 1.1 fewer conversational interactions.
• Based on the average daily screen time at that age seen in the study — 172 minutes (2.87 hours) — “children could be missing out on 1139 adult words, 843 vocalizations, and 194 conversational turns per day,” the researchers estimated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying different ways that screen time could facilitate parent-child interactions, such as through interactive co-viewing, may be important strategies to support families given the current ubiquitous nature of screen time in families’ lives,” the authors of the study wrote.

What children watch and listen to may be an important consideration, according to a developmental scientist who was not involved with the study.

“It could be that less communicative contact with the caregiver is not as detrimental if the screen time is of high quality and developmentally appropriate, educational content,” Marina Bazhydai, PhD, with Lancaster University in Lancaster, United Kingdom, said in her comments on the research. 

SOURCE:

Mary E. Brushe, PhD, with Telethon Kids Institute and the University of Western Australia in Adelaide, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on speech recognition technology did not capture all nuances of screen exposure.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

New research shows increased screen time in children aged 12-36 months is associated with reduced verbal interactions between toddlers and their parents, which in turn could affect language development. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included data from 220 families in Australia.
• Researchers used advanced speech recognition technology to capture children’s screen time and language environment at home during a 16-hour window every 6 months.
• They adjusted for variables such as the sex of the child, the education level of the mother, and psychological distress in the primary caregiver.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Increases in screen time were associated with decreases in words spoken near children by adults, vocalizations by children, and back-and-forth interactions between adults and children. This correlation was especially notable at age 36 months.
• At age 36 months, each additional minute of screen time was linked to children hearing 6.6 fewer adult words, making 4.9 fewer vocalizations, and participating in 1.1 fewer conversational interactions.
• Based on the average daily screen time at that age seen in the study — 172 minutes (2.87 hours) — “children could be missing out on 1139 adult words, 843 vocalizations, and 194 conversational turns per day,” the researchers estimated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying different ways that screen time could facilitate parent-child interactions, such as through interactive co-viewing, may be important strategies to support families given the current ubiquitous nature of screen time in families’ lives,” the authors of the study wrote.

What children watch and listen to may be an important consideration, according to a developmental scientist who was not involved with the study.

“It could be that less communicative contact with the caregiver is not as detrimental if the screen time is of high quality and developmentally appropriate, educational content,” Marina Bazhydai, PhD, with Lancaster University in Lancaster, United Kingdom, said in her comments on the research. 

SOURCE:

Mary E. Brushe, PhD, with Telethon Kids Institute and the University of Western Australia in Adelaide, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on speech recognition technology did not capture all nuances of screen exposure.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

New research shows increased screen time in children aged 12-36 months is associated with reduced verbal interactions between toddlers and their parents, which in turn could affect language development. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included data from 220 families in Australia.
• Researchers used advanced speech recognition technology to capture children’s screen time and language environment at home during a 16-hour window every 6 months.
• They adjusted for variables such as the sex of the child, the education level of the mother, and psychological distress in the primary caregiver.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Increases in screen time were associated with decreases in words spoken near children by adults, vocalizations by children, and back-and-forth interactions between adults and children. This correlation was especially notable at age 36 months.
• At age 36 months, each additional minute of screen time was linked to children hearing 6.6 fewer adult words, making 4.9 fewer vocalizations, and participating in 1.1 fewer conversational interactions.
• Based on the average daily screen time at that age seen in the study — 172 minutes (2.87 hours) — “children could be missing out on 1139 adult words, 843 vocalizations, and 194 conversational turns per day,” the researchers estimated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying different ways that screen time could facilitate parent-child interactions, such as through interactive co-viewing, may be important strategies to support families given the current ubiquitous nature of screen time in families’ lives,” the authors of the study wrote.

What children watch and listen to may be an important consideration, according to a developmental scientist who was not involved with the study.

“It could be that less communicative contact with the caregiver is not as detrimental if the screen time is of high quality and developmentally appropriate, educational content,” Marina Bazhydai, PhD, with Lancaster University in Lancaster, United Kingdom, said in her comments on the research. 

SOURCE:

Mary E. Brushe, PhD, with Telethon Kids Institute and the University of Western Australia in Adelaide, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on speech recognition technology did not capture all nuances of screen exposure.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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