Neurology Reviews

PHOENIX — Black women who develop high blood pressure before age 35 have a threefold increased risk of having a midlife stroke, new observational data suggest. The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.

“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” said the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers, and looking after family.”

Dr. Aparicio presented the data at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.

“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
 

A Large Study Cohort

The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study; the baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.

Both history of hypertension — defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication — and stroke occurrence were determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.

At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.

Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in the Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.

The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).

“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”

He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.

“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.

“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
 

The Role of Psychosocial Stressors

Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.

She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.

This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.

“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.

“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.

The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Black women who develop high blood pressure before age 35 have a threefold increased risk of having a midlife stroke, new observational data suggest. The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.

“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” said the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers, and looking after family.”

Dr. Aparicio presented the data at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.

“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
 

A Large Study Cohort

The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study; the baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.

Both history of hypertension — defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication — and stroke occurrence were determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.

At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.

Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in the Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.

The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).

“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”

He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.

“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.

“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
 

The Role of Psychosocial Stressors

Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.

She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.

This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.

“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.

“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.

The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Black women who develop high blood pressure before age 35 have a threefold increased risk of having a midlife stroke, new observational data suggest. The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.

“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” said the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers, and looking after family.”

Dr. Aparicio presented the data at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.

“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
 

A Large Study Cohort

The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study; the baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.

Both history of hypertension — defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication — and stroke occurrence were determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.

At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.

Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in the Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.

The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).

“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”

He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.

“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.

“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
 

The Role of Psychosocial Stressors

Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.

She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.

This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.

“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.

“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.

The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Habitual consumption of caffeine is not associated with frequency, duration, or intensity of episodic migraines, a new study showed. Investigators said the findings suggest caffeine restrictions in migraineurs may not be necessary.

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on sleep in adults with episodic migraine (with or without aura) included a group of 97 people (median age, 31 years; 82% White) with an average of 5.0 ± 3.6  days per month at baseline.
• Participants provided sociodemographic information, medical history, habitual caffeinated beverage consumption, alcohol intake, and lifestyle and psychosocial factors and completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies- scale, the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
• Additionally, they completed twice-daily electronic diaries for the subsequent 6 weeks, reporting headache activity and the use of medications to treat the headache.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 67% of participants reported one to two servings of caffeinated beverages per day, 12% reported three to four servings per day, and 21% reported no habitual caffeine consumption.
• After adjusting for age, sex, oral  use, and other confounders, mean headache frequency was similar among groups (7.1 days for no caffeine, 7.4 days for one to two servings, and 5.9 days for three to four servings).
• Similarly, adjusted mean headache duration did not differ across levels of caffeinated beverage intake (8.6 hours for no caffeine, 8.5 hours for one to two servings, and 8.8 hours for three to four servings).
• Adjusted mean headache intensity also did not differ among groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not support a recommendation for people with episodic migraine to avoid habitual caffeinated beverage intake,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that habitual caffeine intake may affect systems involved in pain modulation via adenosine signaling. «Therefore, it is possible that habitual caffeine use in those with migraine does not significantly alter adenosine signaling, but significant changes above or below usual consumption may serve as a trigger or contribute to lowering the threshold for an attack to occur along with other triggers,» they added.

SOURCE:

Suzanne M. Bertisch, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Headache.

LIMITATIONS:

Serving size was not standardized, and there was no information on the type of caffeinated beverage consumed or about other sources of caffeine. Moreover, the population consisted of relatively healthy participants with episodic migraine and generally low levels of habitual caffeinated beverage intake, which limited the statistical power to detect an association between migraine frequency, duration, and intensity with higher levels of caffeine intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, and the Harvard Catalyst/Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center. Dr. Bertisch has done consulting work with Idorsia and ResMed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Habitual consumption of caffeine is not associated with frequency, duration, or intensity of episodic migraines, a new study showed. Investigators said the findings suggest caffeine restrictions in migraineurs may not be necessary.

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on sleep in adults with episodic migraine (with or without aura) included a group of 97 people (median age, 31 years; 82% White) with an average of 5.0 ± 3.6  days per month at baseline.
• Participants provided sociodemographic information, medical history, habitual caffeinated beverage consumption, alcohol intake, and lifestyle and psychosocial factors and completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies- scale, the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
• Additionally, they completed twice-daily electronic diaries for the subsequent 6 weeks, reporting headache activity and the use of medications to treat the headache.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 67% of participants reported one to two servings of caffeinated beverages per day, 12% reported three to four servings per day, and 21% reported no habitual caffeine consumption.
• After adjusting for age, sex, oral  use, and other confounders, mean headache frequency was similar among groups (7.1 days for no caffeine, 7.4 days for one to two servings, and 5.9 days for three to four servings).
• Similarly, adjusted mean headache duration did not differ across levels of caffeinated beverage intake (8.6 hours for no caffeine, 8.5 hours for one to two servings, and 8.8 hours for three to four servings).
• Adjusted mean headache intensity also did not differ among groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not support a recommendation for people with episodic migraine to avoid habitual caffeinated beverage intake,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that habitual caffeine intake may affect systems involved in pain modulation via adenosine signaling. «Therefore, it is possible that habitual caffeine use in those with migraine does not significantly alter adenosine signaling, but significant changes above or below usual consumption may serve as a trigger or contribute to lowering the threshold for an attack to occur along with other triggers,» they added.

SOURCE:

Suzanne M. Bertisch, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Headache.

LIMITATIONS:

Serving size was not standardized, and there was no information on the type of caffeinated beverage consumed or about other sources of caffeine. Moreover, the population consisted of relatively healthy participants with episodic migraine and generally low levels of habitual caffeinated beverage intake, which limited the statistical power to detect an association between migraine frequency, duration, and intensity with higher levels of caffeine intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, and the Harvard Catalyst/Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center. Dr. Bertisch has done consulting work with Idorsia and ResMed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Habitual consumption of caffeine is not associated with frequency, duration, or intensity of episodic migraines, a new study showed. Investigators said the findings suggest caffeine restrictions in migraineurs may not be necessary.

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on sleep in adults with episodic migraine (with or without aura) included a group of 97 people (median age, 31 years; 82% White) with an average of 5.0 ± 3.6  days per month at baseline.
• Participants provided sociodemographic information, medical history, habitual caffeinated beverage consumption, alcohol intake, and lifestyle and psychosocial factors and completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies- scale, the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
• Additionally, they completed twice-daily electronic diaries for the subsequent 6 weeks, reporting headache activity and the use of medications to treat the headache.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 67% of participants reported one to two servings of caffeinated beverages per day, 12% reported three to four servings per day, and 21% reported no habitual caffeine consumption.
• After adjusting for age, sex, oral  use, and other confounders, mean headache frequency was similar among groups (7.1 days for no caffeine, 7.4 days for one to two servings, and 5.9 days for three to four servings).
• Similarly, adjusted mean headache duration did not differ across levels of caffeinated beverage intake (8.6 hours for no caffeine, 8.5 hours for one to two servings, and 8.8 hours for three to four servings).
• Adjusted mean headache intensity also did not differ among groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not support a recommendation for people with episodic migraine to avoid habitual caffeinated beverage intake,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that habitual caffeine intake may affect systems involved in pain modulation via adenosine signaling. «Therefore, it is possible that habitual caffeine use in those with migraine does not significantly alter adenosine signaling, but significant changes above or below usual consumption may serve as a trigger or contribute to lowering the threshold for an attack to occur along with other triggers,» they added.

SOURCE:

Suzanne M. Bertisch, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Headache.

LIMITATIONS:

Serving size was not standardized, and there was no information on the type of caffeinated beverage consumed or about other sources of caffeine. Moreover, the population consisted of relatively healthy participants with episodic migraine and generally low levels of habitual caffeinated beverage intake, which limited the statistical power to detect an association between migraine frequency, duration, and intensity with higher levels of caffeine intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, and the Harvard Catalyst/Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center. Dr. Bertisch has done consulting work with Idorsia and ResMed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cognitive impairment in some US veterans may be due to treatable hepatic encephalopathy (HE) rather than dementia, new research suggested.

From 5%-10% of veterans diagnosed with dementia had possible undiagnosed cirrhosis, implicating HE as a contributor to cognitive impairment, found the study by Jasmohan S. Bajaj, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University and Richmond VA Medical Center, Virginia, and colleagues.

The research was prompted, in part, by an earlier case study by Dr. Bajaj and colleagues that showed that two older men diagnosed with dementia and Parkinson’s disease actually had HE, meaning their symptoms were due to advanced but treatable liver disease.

“Once they were properly diagnosed, whatever had been considered dementia was gone,” Dr. Bajaj said. “The spouse of one man said, ‘My husband is a different person now.’ It’s not that clinicians don’t know how to treat HE; the problem was that they did not suspect it.”

Among veterans with cirrhosis, concomitant dementia is common and is difficult to distinguish from HE, but the extent to which patients with dementia also have undiagnosed cirrhosis and HE is unknown, the authors of the current study wrote. “Undiagnosed cirrhosis among veterans with dementia could raise the possibility that part of their cognitive impairment may be due to reversible HE,” they added.

To investigate, the researchers examined the prevalence and risk factors of undiagnosed cirrhosis — and therefore, possible HE — among US veterans.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Dementia or Cirrhosis?

Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, researchers analyzed medical records of 177,422 US veterans diagnosed with dementia but not cirrhosis between 2009 and 2019 and with sufficient laboratory test results to calculate their Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores. The mean age was 78.35 years, 97.1% were men, and 80.7% were White individuals.

The FIB-4 score for each patient was calculated using the most recent alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels or values and platelet values that were closest to the index date during the two years after the index dementia date.

Age is in the numerator of the FIB-4 score calculation; hence, higher age could lead to an erroneously high FIB-4 score, the authors noted. Therefore, for patients older than 65 years, the researchers entered 65 years as an input variable, rather than the actual age.

A FIB-4 score > 2.67 was suggestive of advanced fibrosis, whereas a score > 3.25 was suggestive of cirrhosis. 

A total of 18,390 (10.3%) veterans had a FIB-4 score > 2.67, and 9373 (5.3%) had a FIB-4 score > 3.25.

In multivariable logistic regression models, a FIB-4 score > 3.25 was associated with older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.07), male sex (OR, 1.43), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.48), viral hepatitis (OR, 1.79), an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score showing problem drinking (OR, 1.56), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.11).

In contrast, a FIB-4 score > 3.25 was inversely associated with the White race (OR, 0.79), diabetes (OR, 0.78), hyperlipidemia (OR, 0.84), stroke (OR, 0.85), tobacco use disorder (OR, 0.78), and rural residence (OR, 0.92).

Similar findings were associated with the FIB-4 greater than 2.67 threshold.

In a follow-up validation study among 89 veterans diagnosed with dementia at a single center, the researchers found similar results: 4.4%-11.2% of participants had high FIB-4 scores, suggestive of HE.

After investigating further, they concluded that 5% of patients in that cohort had reasons other than cirrhosis for their high FIB-4 scores. The remaining patients (95%) had evidence of cirrhosis, had risk factors, and/or had no other explanation for their high FIB-4 scores.

“The combination of high FIB-4 scores and other risk factors for liver disease in patients with dementia raises the possibility that reversible HE could be a factor associated with cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote. “These findings highlight the potential to enhance cognitive function and quality of life by increasing awareness of risk factors and diagnostic indicators of advanced liver disease that may be associated with HE as a factor or as a differential diagnosis of dementia among clinicians other than liver specialists.”
 

FIB-4 Screening Advised

“An elderly patient with cirrhosis used to be an oxymoron, because we never used to have people who lived this long or were diagnosed this late with cirrhosis,” Dr. Bajaj told this news organization. “It’s a good problem to have because people are now living longer, but it also means that we need to have every single person who is taking care of patients with what is deemed to be dementia know that the patient could also have an element of encephalopathy.”

Increased awareness is important because, unlike dementia, encephalopathy is very easily treated, Dr. Bajaj said. “The biggest, easiest, correctable cause is to figure out if they have severe liver disease, and if that’s the case, your friendly neighborhood gastroenterologist is waiting for you,” he added.

The finding that cirrhosis was present in 95% of patients in the validation cohort is “very impressive, as they had excluded from the consideration all those with obvious cirrhosis before the FIB-4 was done,” said William Carey, MD, acting hepatology section head in the Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease Institute in Ohio. “This validates FIB-4 as a powerful tool for cirrhosis case-finding.” 

Ordering a FIB-4 “is within the skill set of every healthcare provider,” Dr. Carey, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “Patients with altered mental status, including suspected or proven dementia, should be screened for possible cirrhosis, as future management will change. Those with elevated FIB-4 results should also be tested for possible HE and treated if it is present.”

The study was partly funded by VA Merit Review grants to Dr. Bajaj. Dr. Bajaj reported receiving grants from Bausch, Grifols, Sequana, and Mallinckrodt outside the submitted work. Dr. Carey reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cognitive impairment in some US veterans may be due to treatable hepatic encephalopathy (HE) rather than dementia, new research suggested.

From 5%-10% of veterans diagnosed with dementia had possible undiagnosed cirrhosis, implicating HE as a contributor to cognitive impairment, found the study by Jasmohan S. Bajaj, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University and Richmond VA Medical Center, Virginia, and colleagues.

The research was prompted, in part, by an earlier case study by Dr. Bajaj and colleagues that showed that two older men diagnosed with dementia and Parkinson’s disease actually had HE, meaning their symptoms were due to advanced but treatable liver disease.

“Once they were properly diagnosed, whatever had been considered dementia was gone,” Dr. Bajaj said. “The spouse of one man said, ‘My husband is a different person now.’ It’s not that clinicians don’t know how to treat HE; the problem was that they did not suspect it.”

Among veterans with cirrhosis, concomitant dementia is common and is difficult to distinguish from HE, but the extent to which patients with dementia also have undiagnosed cirrhosis and HE is unknown, the authors of the current study wrote. “Undiagnosed cirrhosis among veterans with dementia could raise the possibility that part of their cognitive impairment may be due to reversible HE,” they added.

To investigate, the researchers examined the prevalence and risk factors of undiagnosed cirrhosis — and therefore, possible HE — among US veterans.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Dementia or Cirrhosis?

Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, researchers analyzed medical records of 177,422 US veterans diagnosed with dementia but not cirrhosis between 2009 and 2019 and with sufficient laboratory test results to calculate their Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores. The mean age was 78.35 years, 97.1% were men, and 80.7% were White individuals.

The FIB-4 score for each patient was calculated using the most recent alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels or values and platelet values that were closest to the index date during the two years after the index dementia date.

Age is in the numerator of the FIB-4 score calculation; hence, higher age could lead to an erroneously high FIB-4 score, the authors noted. Therefore, for patients older than 65 years, the researchers entered 65 years as an input variable, rather than the actual age.

A FIB-4 score > 2.67 was suggestive of advanced fibrosis, whereas a score > 3.25 was suggestive of cirrhosis. 

A total of 18,390 (10.3%) veterans had a FIB-4 score > 2.67, and 9373 (5.3%) had a FIB-4 score > 3.25.

In multivariable logistic regression models, a FIB-4 score > 3.25 was associated with older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.07), male sex (OR, 1.43), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.48), viral hepatitis (OR, 1.79), an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score showing problem drinking (OR, 1.56), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.11).

In contrast, a FIB-4 score > 3.25 was inversely associated with the White race (OR, 0.79), diabetes (OR, 0.78), hyperlipidemia (OR, 0.84), stroke (OR, 0.85), tobacco use disorder (OR, 0.78), and rural residence (OR, 0.92).

Similar findings were associated with the FIB-4 greater than 2.67 threshold.

In a follow-up validation study among 89 veterans diagnosed with dementia at a single center, the researchers found similar results: 4.4%-11.2% of participants had high FIB-4 scores, suggestive of HE.

After investigating further, they concluded that 5% of patients in that cohort had reasons other than cirrhosis for their high FIB-4 scores. The remaining patients (95%) had evidence of cirrhosis, had risk factors, and/or had no other explanation for their high FIB-4 scores.

“The combination of high FIB-4 scores and other risk factors for liver disease in patients with dementia raises the possibility that reversible HE could be a factor associated with cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote. “These findings highlight the potential to enhance cognitive function and quality of life by increasing awareness of risk factors and diagnostic indicators of advanced liver disease that may be associated with HE as a factor or as a differential diagnosis of dementia among clinicians other than liver specialists.”
 

FIB-4 Screening Advised

“An elderly patient with cirrhosis used to be an oxymoron, because we never used to have people who lived this long or were diagnosed this late with cirrhosis,” Dr. Bajaj told this news organization. “It’s a good problem to have because people are now living longer, but it also means that we need to have every single person who is taking care of patients with what is deemed to be dementia know that the patient could also have an element of encephalopathy.”

Increased awareness is important because, unlike dementia, encephalopathy is very easily treated, Dr. Bajaj said. “The biggest, easiest, correctable cause is to figure out if they have severe liver disease, and if that’s the case, your friendly neighborhood gastroenterologist is waiting for you,” he added.

The finding that cirrhosis was present in 95% of patients in the validation cohort is “very impressive, as they had excluded from the consideration all those with obvious cirrhosis before the FIB-4 was done,” said William Carey, MD, acting hepatology section head in the Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease Institute in Ohio. “This validates FIB-4 as a powerful tool for cirrhosis case-finding.” 

Ordering a FIB-4 “is within the skill set of every healthcare provider,” Dr. Carey, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “Patients with altered mental status, including suspected or proven dementia, should be screened for possible cirrhosis, as future management will change. Those with elevated FIB-4 results should also be tested for possible HE and treated if it is present.”

The study was partly funded by VA Merit Review grants to Dr. Bajaj. Dr. Bajaj reported receiving grants from Bausch, Grifols, Sequana, and Mallinckrodt outside the submitted work. Dr. Carey reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cognitive impairment in some US veterans may be due to treatable hepatic encephalopathy (HE) rather than dementia, new research suggested.

From 5%-10% of veterans diagnosed with dementia had possible undiagnosed cirrhosis, implicating HE as a contributor to cognitive impairment, found the study by Jasmohan S. Bajaj, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University and Richmond VA Medical Center, Virginia, and colleagues.

The research was prompted, in part, by an earlier case study by Dr. Bajaj and colleagues that showed that two older men diagnosed with dementia and Parkinson’s disease actually had HE, meaning their symptoms were due to advanced but treatable liver disease.

“Once they were properly diagnosed, whatever had been considered dementia was gone,” Dr. Bajaj said. “The spouse of one man said, ‘My husband is a different person now.’ It’s not that clinicians don’t know how to treat HE; the problem was that they did not suspect it.”

Among veterans with cirrhosis, concomitant dementia is common and is difficult to distinguish from HE, but the extent to which patients with dementia also have undiagnosed cirrhosis and HE is unknown, the authors of the current study wrote. “Undiagnosed cirrhosis among veterans with dementia could raise the possibility that part of their cognitive impairment may be due to reversible HE,” they added.

To investigate, the researchers examined the prevalence and risk factors of undiagnosed cirrhosis — and therefore, possible HE — among US veterans.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Dementia or Cirrhosis?

Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, researchers analyzed medical records of 177,422 US veterans diagnosed with dementia but not cirrhosis between 2009 and 2019 and with sufficient laboratory test results to calculate their Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores. The mean age was 78.35 years, 97.1% were men, and 80.7% were White individuals.

The FIB-4 score for each patient was calculated using the most recent alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels or values and platelet values that were closest to the index date during the two years after the index dementia date.

Age is in the numerator of the FIB-4 score calculation; hence, higher age could lead to an erroneously high FIB-4 score, the authors noted. Therefore, for patients older than 65 years, the researchers entered 65 years as an input variable, rather than the actual age.

A FIB-4 score > 2.67 was suggestive of advanced fibrosis, whereas a score > 3.25 was suggestive of cirrhosis. 

A total of 18,390 (10.3%) veterans had a FIB-4 score > 2.67, and 9373 (5.3%) had a FIB-4 score > 3.25.

In multivariable logistic regression models, a FIB-4 score > 3.25 was associated with older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.07), male sex (OR, 1.43), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.48), viral hepatitis (OR, 1.79), an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score showing problem drinking (OR, 1.56), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.11).

In contrast, a FIB-4 score > 3.25 was inversely associated with the White race (OR, 0.79), diabetes (OR, 0.78), hyperlipidemia (OR, 0.84), stroke (OR, 0.85), tobacco use disorder (OR, 0.78), and rural residence (OR, 0.92).

Similar findings were associated with the FIB-4 greater than 2.67 threshold.

In a follow-up validation study among 89 veterans diagnosed with dementia at a single center, the researchers found similar results: 4.4%-11.2% of participants had high FIB-4 scores, suggestive of HE.

After investigating further, they concluded that 5% of patients in that cohort had reasons other than cirrhosis for their high FIB-4 scores. The remaining patients (95%) had evidence of cirrhosis, had risk factors, and/or had no other explanation for their high FIB-4 scores.

“The combination of high FIB-4 scores and other risk factors for liver disease in patients with dementia raises the possibility that reversible HE could be a factor associated with cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote. “These findings highlight the potential to enhance cognitive function and quality of life by increasing awareness of risk factors and diagnostic indicators of advanced liver disease that may be associated with HE as a factor or as a differential diagnosis of dementia among clinicians other than liver specialists.”
 

FIB-4 Screening Advised

“An elderly patient with cirrhosis used to be an oxymoron, because we never used to have people who lived this long or were diagnosed this late with cirrhosis,” Dr. Bajaj told this news organization. “It’s a good problem to have because people are now living longer, but it also means that we need to have every single person who is taking care of patients with what is deemed to be dementia know that the patient could also have an element of encephalopathy.”

Increased awareness is important because, unlike dementia, encephalopathy is very easily treated, Dr. Bajaj said. “The biggest, easiest, correctable cause is to figure out if they have severe liver disease, and if that’s the case, your friendly neighborhood gastroenterologist is waiting for you,” he added.

The finding that cirrhosis was present in 95% of patients in the validation cohort is “very impressive, as they had excluded from the consideration all those with obvious cirrhosis before the FIB-4 was done,” said William Carey, MD, acting hepatology section head in the Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease Institute in Ohio. “This validates FIB-4 as a powerful tool for cirrhosis case-finding.” 

Ordering a FIB-4 “is within the skill set of every healthcare provider,” Dr. Carey, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “Patients with altered mental status, including suspected or proven dementia, should be screened for possible cirrhosis, as future management will change. Those with elevated FIB-4 results should also be tested for possible HE and treated if it is present.”

The study was partly funded by VA Merit Review grants to Dr. Bajaj. Dr. Bajaj reported receiving grants from Bausch, Grifols, Sequana, and Mallinckrodt outside the submitted work. Dr. Carey reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Playing a musical instrument is associated with better working memory and executive function, and singing in a group is associated with better executive function, new study results showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• This was a nested study within PROTECT-UK, a longitudinal cohort study designed to examine aging and brain health. Participants completed three tests for working memory and one for executive function up to three times a year between 2019 and 2022.
• A group of 1107 participants (83% female; mean age 68 years) completed the Edinburgh Lifetime Musical Experience Questionnaire, which posed questions about playing musical instruments, singing, listening to music, and self-reported musical ability.
• Participants were split into two groups, namely, those who reported singing or playing a musical instrument (89%) or not (11%), and compared.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants who reported playing a musical instrument performed significantly better on working memory (P < .0001) and executive function tasks (P < .0005) than those who didn’t play an instrument.
• The effect on working memory was the most heightened in those who reported playing keyboard (P < .0001), while those who played a woodwind instrument (P < .04) and/or sang (P < .014) showed significantly better performance on the executive function task.
• Nearly 90% of the sample had experience playing a musical instrument, with 44% playing currently. The majority of participants reported playing either one (28%) or two (23%) instruments.

IN PRACTICE:

Public health interventions might promote dementia risk reduction by incorporating music into programming, the authors concluded. “There is considerable evidence for the benefit of music group activities for individuals with dementia, and this approach could be extended as part of a health aging package for healthy older adults to enable them to proactively reduce their risk and to promote brain health,” they wrote.

SOURCE:

Gaia Vetere, MD, of the University of Exeter in Exeter, England, led the study, which was published online on January 28, 2024, in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were self-reported so may be subject to bias, and the size of the comparison group (those who didn’t play an instrument or sing) was much smaller.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Exeter Biomedical Research Centre. Disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Playing a musical instrument is associated with better working memory and executive function, and singing in a group is associated with better executive function, new study results showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• This was a nested study within PROTECT-UK, a longitudinal cohort study designed to examine aging and brain health. Participants completed three tests for working memory and one for executive function up to three times a year between 2019 and 2022.
• A group of 1107 participants (83% female; mean age 68 years) completed the Edinburgh Lifetime Musical Experience Questionnaire, which posed questions about playing musical instruments, singing, listening to music, and self-reported musical ability.
• Participants were split into two groups, namely, those who reported singing or playing a musical instrument (89%) or not (11%), and compared.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants who reported playing a musical instrument performed significantly better on working memory (P < .0001) and executive function tasks (P < .0005) than those who didn’t play an instrument.
• The effect on working memory was the most heightened in those who reported playing keyboard (P < .0001), while those who played a woodwind instrument (P < .04) and/or sang (P < .014) showed significantly better performance on the executive function task.
• Nearly 90% of the sample had experience playing a musical instrument, with 44% playing currently. The majority of participants reported playing either one (28%) or two (23%) instruments.

IN PRACTICE:

Public health interventions might promote dementia risk reduction by incorporating music into programming, the authors concluded. “There is considerable evidence for the benefit of music group activities for individuals with dementia, and this approach could be extended as part of a health aging package for healthy older adults to enable them to proactively reduce their risk and to promote brain health,” they wrote.

SOURCE:

Gaia Vetere, MD, of the University of Exeter in Exeter, England, led the study, which was published online on January 28, 2024, in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were self-reported so may be subject to bias, and the size of the comparison group (those who didn’t play an instrument or sing) was much smaller.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Exeter Biomedical Research Centre. Disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Playing a musical instrument is associated with better working memory and executive function, and singing in a group is associated with better executive function, new study results showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• This was a nested study within PROTECT-UK, a longitudinal cohort study designed to examine aging and brain health. Participants completed three tests for working memory and one for executive function up to three times a year between 2019 and 2022.
• A group of 1107 participants (83% female; mean age 68 years) completed the Edinburgh Lifetime Musical Experience Questionnaire, which posed questions about playing musical instruments, singing, listening to music, and self-reported musical ability.
• Participants were split into two groups, namely, those who reported singing or playing a musical instrument (89%) or not (11%), and compared.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants who reported playing a musical instrument performed significantly better on working memory (P < .0001) and executive function tasks (P < .0005) than those who didn’t play an instrument.
• The effect on working memory was the most heightened in those who reported playing keyboard (P < .0001), while those who played a woodwind instrument (P < .04) and/or sang (P < .014) showed significantly better performance on the executive function task.
• Nearly 90% of the sample had experience playing a musical instrument, with 44% playing currently. The majority of participants reported playing either one (28%) or two (23%) instruments.

IN PRACTICE:

Public health interventions might promote dementia risk reduction by incorporating music into programming, the authors concluded. “There is considerable evidence for the benefit of music group activities for individuals with dementia, and this approach could be extended as part of a health aging package for healthy older adults to enable them to proactively reduce their risk and to promote brain health,” they wrote.

SOURCE:

Gaia Vetere, MD, of the University of Exeter in Exeter, England, led the study, which was published online on January 28, 2024, in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were self-reported so may be subject to bias, and the size of the comparison group (those who didn’t play an instrument or sing) was much smaller.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Exeter Biomedical Research Centre. Disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

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.

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

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.

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 1.1% of US adults have epilepsy. Although 89% report seeing a physician in the past year about their condition, only 62% of adults saw a neurologist or seizure specialist. 

These findings prompted Rosemary Kobau, MPH, the acting team lead for the CDC’s epilepsy program, to take a closer look at referral patterns by primary care providers in the United States. Using data from a 2018 online survey of US internists, pediatricians, family medicine physicians, and nurse practitioners, she found that 90% of providers would refer a patient with new-onset seizure to a neurologist.

She also noticed what she calls a “big red flag”: “We found that 40% of primary care providers did not indicate that they would refer their patient with epilepsy to a neurologist when their patient fails to respond to treatment, or if they have a change in seizure activity,” Dr. Kobau told this news organization. Individuals with uncontrolled seizures are at risk for multiple adverse health outcomes, along with emotional problems, social stigma, and decreased life expectancy. 

Factors that influenced primary care clinicians to refer to a neurologist included prompt availability of appointments, ability to talk to the neurologist, and whether a patient’s insurance covered specialty visits. Proximity of a specialist also was cited as a barrier, because neurologists can be hard to find outside of urban centers.

Wait lists for neurologist are not like to get shorter any time soon, according to a 2019 report from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). A 2013 workforce report from the AAN found 35 US states, representing 62% of the US population, had fewer neurologists than needed to meet demand. By 2025, demand is projected to exceed supply in 41 states. 

Much of the increasing demand for adult neurologists is driven by aging of the population, resulting in higher rates of stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia. But pediatric neurologists are also overwhelmed: Pediatric neurology is one of the top three pediatric subspecialties with the longest wait times. The shortage is exacerbated by difficulties in transitioning adolescents with epilepsy — many diagnosed early in life with neurodevelopmental and epileptic encephalopathy and problem lists that include learning disorders, behavioral issues, and other chronic medical problems — to adult epilepsy specialists. 

Although one of the solutions offered by the AAN is more training in epilepsy management for non-neurologists (such as CME programs developed by the American Epilepsy Society), many primary care providers are overwhelmed already. Still, primary care providers are well-positioned to help answer some of the most important questions about the management of patients with seizure disorders. 
 

How to Help

“There’s a lot the pediatrician can do when a child presents with seizures,” said Sucheta Joshi, MD, who serves as the medical director of the Neurological Institute Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Step one is helping to allay the fears of family members who witness a seizure. “They can talk about seizure safety, they can talk about first aid when a seizure happens, they can talk about what to do, what not to do,” she advised. Clinicians who see children can find resources for families on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy website, including a 24/7 helpline, information about local chapters of the Epilepsy Foundation, and first aid training for seizures. 

Fred Lado, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Norwell in Hempstead, New York, said that primary care clinicians have several decision points when it comes to their patients with epilepsy.

The first is whether to initiate medication after the first episode of seizure. Studies show that the risk for a second seizure decreases in patients started on anticonvulsant therapy after a first event, but many clinicians don›t want to commit patients to long-term therapy without more evidence that the patient has epilepsy. Studies have shown that delaying therapy until a second seizure occurs doesn›t negatively affect quality of life and long-term prognosis. 

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) advised treatment for patients with two or more unprovoked seizures but revised its recommendation in 2014 to begin treatment after a first seizure for individuals at high risk for a second seizure. History of a brain insult related to a stroke, mass lesion in the brain, or trauma are risk factors for a second seizure, whereas seizures provoked by a concussion, alcohol withdrawal, or exposure to toxins carry low risk for additional episodes.

Dr. Lado also raised the importance of taking a good history from a patient presenting for medical care for a new-onset seizure to determine whether the recent episode is really the first such incident.

Up to half of patients presenting to emergency departments for convulsive seizures have a history of a preceding nonmotor seizure that the patient or their family members have failed to identify. As many as 60% of people with epilepsy have focal seizures, but the majority of these are nonmotor seizures. As a result, these patients often go without a diagnosis until they develop bilateral tonic-clonic seizures — by which time they may already been injured during a seizure or had an accident while driving.

In terms of imaging and other workup that should be performed prior to the first appointment with a pediatric neurologist or epilepsy specialist, Dr. Joshi generally recommends EEG. She also prefers MRI over CT, which is better for finding lesions that tend to cause seizures in kids such as developmental abnormalities like a cortical malformation or a perinatal process. Obtaining an MRI prior to seeing the neurologist is elective, depending on whether the history and clinical presentation suggest a focal lesion.

For adults, Dr. Lado also recommends an EEG and MRI to start but rarely advises other laboratory studies. When patients present to the emergency department with a new-onset seizure, the workup commonly includes a chemistry panel to rule out hypoglycemia or electrolyte abnormalities. But in the outpatient setting, where a patient describes symptoms of a seizure that occurred a week ago or longer, Dr. Lado said the yield of such assessments is low. 

“I think the labs are often more useful as you’re thinking about an anticonvulsant,” Dr. Lado said. Particularly for a patient who is facing a long wait to see specialist, obtaining baseline liver enzymes and a complete blood cell count is worthwhile, because many antiseizure medications can cause anemia or liver damage.

Dr. Lado agreed that referral to a specialist is critical for patients with drug-resistant seizures, defined by the ILAE as seizures that persist despite the use of two or more anticonvulsants. 

“One of the great problems in epilepsy care is a sort of sense of complacency,” he said. Some of his own patients have become comfortable with their epilepsy diagnosis and profess to be untroubled by having a few seizures per year. In 2018, Dr. Kobau was a co-author on a study reporting that less than half of US adults taking seizure medications were seizure-free in the past year. 

This scenario is an opportunity for primary care providers to help determine whether their patients are taking their antiseizure medication correctly. A referral to a specialist might not be necessary if the seizures are occurring because the patient’s prescription ran out. Similarly, if a patient doesn’t take the medication because of unpleasant side effects, raising the dose won’t help. 

Dr. Lado’s advice is to explore why the patient’s management plan is not working and make adjustments tailored to their needs. The solution might be as simple as changing the patient to an extended-release formulation to lower the number of daily doses needed, he said.

But for patients who do have recurrent seizures despite good adherence, Dr. Lado strongly urges a referral to an epilepsy specialist. He serves as president of the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC), a network of more than 260 epilepsy centers in the United States that offer the services of epileptologists, neurosurgeons, neuropsychologists, nurse specialists, EEG technologists, social workers, and others with training and experience in epilepsy care. In addition to adjusting and monitoring medications, patients seen at an NAEC can be evaluated for surgery, neurostimulators, and ketogenic diets.
 

Improving Self-Management

Another role that primary care can play is promoting self-efficacy among patients with epilepsy.

“Providers have historically tended to focus on medication adherence alone, ignoring other health enhancing behaviors, even just sleep hygiene,” Dr. Kobau said. But adequate sleep, regular exercise, a healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and excessive alcohol, and stress management are all important for seizure management. 

In 2007, CDC launched the Managing Epilepsy Well (MEW) Network, which has the mission of advancing self-management research in collaboration with patients with epilepsy as well as a broad range of healthcare providers. “It’s a patient-driven kind of approach consistent with community-based, participatory practice research,” said Dr. Kobau, who oversees the initiative.

The MEW network, which consists of six prevention research centers funded by CDC, has piloted and evaluated several evidence-based programs that can help patients better control their epilepsy. 

One such intervention is Project Uplift, which delivers mindfulness-based cognitive-behavioral therapy in a virtual group setting. Behavioral therapy is important for people with seizure disorders, whose risk for depression is more than twice that of the general population. The initial trial found the intervention was effective in reducing depressive symptoms in participants, and research since has focused on adapting the program to provide culturally appropriate care to underserved populations. The eight sessions, held weekly, are available in both English and Spanish.

Another program, HOBSCOTCH, allows patients to meet one-on-one virtually with a trained coach to work on skills for improving attention and memory, common problems among people with epilepsy.

MINDSET involves a tablet-based clinical decision tool that patients can use to track their self-management behaviors, such as taking their medications, seizure triggers, symptoms of depression, and keeping their clinic appointments. It also helps them monitor whether they are getting adequate sleep, reducing their stress, and maintaining social networks. The tool generates a printable action plan for patients to prompt discussion and shared decision-making between patient and clinician to prioritize behavioral issues, set goals, and monitor changes over time.

Clinicians can refer patients to any of the MEW interventions, or patients can enroll themselves online.

 

Emerging Approaches

The AAN’s 2019 report promoted use of technological solutions to bridge the gap between primary care providers and scarce — as well as distant — neurologists. Many health systems support e-consults between clinicians, allowing simple discussions about medications and advice about testing recommended prior to a neurology visit. Initially developed for treatment for infection with hepatitis C virus, Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) uses a central hub of specialists to support primary care providers via teleconference to conduct case reviews and didactic sessions. 

Much of Dr. Joshi’s work has focused on ways to coordinate care to children who live far from a pediatric epilepsy center. In a previous position at the University of Michigan, her team was one of four sites funded by the AAP’s National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy to pilot an intervention using telehealth. Implemented in 2017-2019, the initiative used quality improvement methodology to explore a model where patients went to the office of their primary care provider so that both could participate in the call with a neurologist.

The strategy was successful, resulting in reduced out-of-pocket costs, missed school hours, and missed work hours. Patient satisfaction was high (97%), and more parents in the intervention group than the control group agreed that it was easier to obtain appointments with specialists (95% vs 65%, respectively).

And since the pandemic, in-home telehealth visits have become commonplace, adding to the potential convenience and cost savings of telemedicine. 

CDC has invested in Project ECHO as a training program for nonspecialist providers to manage epilepsy. Based at the University of Cincinnati, the initial pilot from 2017 to 2019 trained primary care providers in Ohio and neighboring states using monthly 1-hour sessions via Zoom. According to Dr. Kobau, “Of those 164 primary care providers, 97% reported higher interest in improving their care of patients with epilepsy, and at least 98% reported that they were more confident in treating their patients with epilepsy.” Since that time, over 900 providers have received the training, which now attracts participants from all over the country.

Although the current burden of managing epilepsy now seems to be falling heavily on primary care providers, Dr. Lado said he believes they can provide useful insight into their patients’ history and needs: “I think they are in a unique and impactful position, mostly to refer those patients who are still having seizures.”
 

Additional Resources for Patients and Providers

• American Academy of Pediatrics National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy 
• American Epilepsy Society  (CME courses designed to designed to increase knowledge about epilepsy diagnosis, treatment, and management; seizure first-aid; epilepsy stigma; and social determinants of health for people with epilepsy)  
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   .

Dr. Joshi, Dr. Kobau, and Dr. Lado report no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 1.1% of US adults have epilepsy. Although 89% report seeing a physician in the past year about their condition, only 62% of adults saw a neurologist or seizure specialist. 

These findings prompted Rosemary Kobau, MPH, the acting team lead for the CDC’s epilepsy program, to take a closer look at referral patterns by primary care providers in the United States. Using data from a 2018 online survey of US internists, pediatricians, family medicine physicians, and nurse practitioners, she found that 90% of providers would refer a patient with new-onset seizure to a neurologist.

She also noticed what she calls a “big red flag”: “We found that 40% of primary care providers did not indicate that they would refer their patient with epilepsy to a neurologist when their patient fails to respond to treatment, or if they have a change in seizure activity,” Dr. Kobau told this news organization. Individuals with uncontrolled seizures are at risk for multiple adverse health outcomes, along with emotional problems, social stigma, and decreased life expectancy. 

Factors that influenced primary care clinicians to refer to a neurologist included prompt availability of appointments, ability to talk to the neurologist, and whether a patient’s insurance covered specialty visits. Proximity of a specialist also was cited as a barrier, because neurologists can be hard to find outside of urban centers.

Wait lists for neurologist are not like to get shorter any time soon, according to a 2019 report from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). A 2013 workforce report from the AAN found 35 US states, representing 62% of the US population, had fewer neurologists than needed to meet demand. By 2025, demand is projected to exceed supply in 41 states. 

Much of the increasing demand for adult neurologists is driven by aging of the population, resulting in higher rates of stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia. But pediatric neurologists are also overwhelmed: Pediatric neurology is one of the top three pediatric subspecialties with the longest wait times. The shortage is exacerbated by difficulties in transitioning adolescents with epilepsy — many diagnosed early in life with neurodevelopmental and epileptic encephalopathy and problem lists that include learning disorders, behavioral issues, and other chronic medical problems — to adult epilepsy specialists. 

Although one of the solutions offered by the AAN is more training in epilepsy management for non-neurologists (such as CME programs developed by the American Epilepsy Society), many primary care providers are overwhelmed already. Still, primary care providers are well-positioned to help answer some of the most important questions about the management of patients with seizure disorders. 
 

How to Help

“There’s a lot the pediatrician can do when a child presents with seizures,” said Sucheta Joshi, MD, who serves as the medical director of the Neurological Institute Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Step one is helping to allay the fears of family members who witness a seizure. “They can talk about seizure safety, they can talk about first aid when a seizure happens, they can talk about what to do, what not to do,” she advised. Clinicians who see children can find resources for families on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy website, including a 24/7 helpline, information about local chapters of the Epilepsy Foundation, and first aid training for seizures. 

Fred Lado, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Norwell in Hempstead, New York, said that primary care clinicians have several decision points when it comes to their patients with epilepsy.

The first is whether to initiate medication after the first episode of seizure. Studies show that the risk for a second seizure decreases in patients started on anticonvulsant therapy after a first event, but many clinicians don›t want to commit patients to long-term therapy without more evidence that the patient has epilepsy. Studies have shown that delaying therapy until a second seizure occurs doesn›t negatively affect quality of life and long-term prognosis. 

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) advised treatment for patients with two or more unprovoked seizures but revised its recommendation in 2014 to begin treatment after a first seizure for individuals at high risk for a second seizure. History of a brain insult related to a stroke, mass lesion in the brain, or trauma are risk factors for a second seizure, whereas seizures provoked by a concussion, alcohol withdrawal, or exposure to toxins carry low risk for additional episodes.

Dr. Lado also raised the importance of taking a good history from a patient presenting for medical care for a new-onset seizure to determine whether the recent episode is really the first such incident.

Up to half of patients presenting to emergency departments for convulsive seizures have a history of a preceding nonmotor seizure that the patient or their family members have failed to identify. As many as 60% of people with epilepsy have focal seizures, but the majority of these are nonmotor seizures. As a result, these patients often go without a diagnosis until they develop bilateral tonic-clonic seizures — by which time they may already been injured during a seizure or had an accident while driving.

In terms of imaging and other workup that should be performed prior to the first appointment with a pediatric neurologist or epilepsy specialist, Dr. Joshi generally recommends EEG. She also prefers MRI over CT, which is better for finding lesions that tend to cause seizures in kids such as developmental abnormalities like a cortical malformation or a perinatal process. Obtaining an MRI prior to seeing the neurologist is elective, depending on whether the history and clinical presentation suggest a focal lesion.

For adults, Dr. Lado also recommends an EEG and MRI to start but rarely advises other laboratory studies. When patients present to the emergency department with a new-onset seizure, the workup commonly includes a chemistry panel to rule out hypoglycemia or electrolyte abnormalities. But in the outpatient setting, where a patient describes symptoms of a seizure that occurred a week ago or longer, Dr. Lado said the yield of such assessments is low. 

“I think the labs are often more useful as you’re thinking about an anticonvulsant,” Dr. Lado said. Particularly for a patient who is facing a long wait to see specialist, obtaining baseline liver enzymes and a complete blood cell count is worthwhile, because many antiseizure medications can cause anemia or liver damage.

Dr. Lado agreed that referral to a specialist is critical for patients with drug-resistant seizures, defined by the ILAE as seizures that persist despite the use of two or more anticonvulsants. 

“One of the great problems in epilepsy care is a sort of sense of complacency,” he said. Some of his own patients have become comfortable with their epilepsy diagnosis and profess to be untroubled by having a few seizures per year. In 2018, Dr. Kobau was a co-author on a study reporting that less than half of US adults taking seizure medications were seizure-free in the past year. 

This scenario is an opportunity for primary care providers to help determine whether their patients are taking their antiseizure medication correctly. A referral to a specialist might not be necessary if the seizures are occurring because the patient’s prescription ran out. Similarly, if a patient doesn’t take the medication because of unpleasant side effects, raising the dose won’t help. 

Dr. Lado’s advice is to explore why the patient’s management plan is not working and make adjustments tailored to their needs. The solution might be as simple as changing the patient to an extended-release formulation to lower the number of daily doses needed, he said.

But for patients who do have recurrent seizures despite good adherence, Dr. Lado strongly urges a referral to an epilepsy specialist. He serves as president of the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC), a network of more than 260 epilepsy centers in the United States that offer the services of epileptologists, neurosurgeons, neuropsychologists, nurse specialists, EEG technologists, social workers, and others with training and experience in epilepsy care. In addition to adjusting and monitoring medications, patients seen at an NAEC can be evaluated for surgery, neurostimulators, and ketogenic diets.
 

Improving Self-Management

Another role that primary care can play is promoting self-efficacy among patients with epilepsy.

“Providers have historically tended to focus on medication adherence alone, ignoring other health enhancing behaviors, even just sleep hygiene,” Dr. Kobau said. But adequate sleep, regular exercise, a healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and excessive alcohol, and stress management are all important for seizure management. 

In 2007, CDC launched the Managing Epilepsy Well (MEW) Network, which has the mission of advancing self-management research in collaboration with patients with epilepsy as well as a broad range of healthcare providers. “It’s a patient-driven kind of approach consistent with community-based, participatory practice research,” said Dr. Kobau, who oversees the initiative.

The MEW network, which consists of six prevention research centers funded by CDC, has piloted and evaluated several evidence-based programs that can help patients better control their epilepsy. 

One such intervention is Project Uplift, which delivers mindfulness-based cognitive-behavioral therapy in a virtual group setting. Behavioral therapy is important for people with seizure disorders, whose risk for depression is more than twice that of the general population. The initial trial found the intervention was effective in reducing depressive symptoms in participants, and research since has focused on adapting the program to provide culturally appropriate care to underserved populations. The eight sessions, held weekly, are available in both English and Spanish.

Another program, HOBSCOTCH, allows patients to meet one-on-one virtually with a trained coach to work on skills for improving attention and memory, common problems among people with epilepsy.

MINDSET involves a tablet-based clinical decision tool that patients can use to track their self-management behaviors, such as taking their medications, seizure triggers, symptoms of depression, and keeping their clinic appointments. It also helps them monitor whether they are getting adequate sleep, reducing their stress, and maintaining social networks. The tool generates a printable action plan for patients to prompt discussion and shared decision-making between patient and clinician to prioritize behavioral issues, set goals, and monitor changes over time.

Clinicians can refer patients to any of the MEW interventions, or patients can enroll themselves online.

 

Emerging Approaches

The AAN’s 2019 report promoted use of technological solutions to bridge the gap between primary care providers and scarce — as well as distant — neurologists. Many health systems support e-consults between clinicians, allowing simple discussions about medications and advice about testing recommended prior to a neurology visit. Initially developed for treatment for infection with hepatitis C virus, Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) uses a central hub of specialists to support primary care providers via teleconference to conduct case reviews and didactic sessions. 

Much of Dr. Joshi’s work has focused on ways to coordinate care to children who live far from a pediatric epilepsy center. In a previous position at the University of Michigan, her team was one of four sites funded by the AAP’s National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy to pilot an intervention using telehealth. Implemented in 2017-2019, the initiative used quality improvement methodology to explore a model where patients went to the office of their primary care provider so that both could participate in the call with a neurologist.

The strategy was successful, resulting in reduced out-of-pocket costs, missed school hours, and missed work hours. Patient satisfaction was high (97%), and more parents in the intervention group than the control group agreed that it was easier to obtain appointments with specialists (95% vs 65%, respectively).

And since the pandemic, in-home telehealth visits have become commonplace, adding to the potential convenience and cost savings of telemedicine. 

CDC has invested in Project ECHO as a training program for nonspecialist providers to manage epilepsy. Based at the University of Cincinnati, the initial pilot from 2017 to 2019 trained primary care providers in Ohio and neighboring states using monthly 1-hour sessions via Zoom. According to Dr. Kobau, “Of those 164 primary care providers, 97% reported higher interest in improving their care of patients with epilepsy, and at least 98% reported that they were more confident in treating their patients with epilepsy.” Since that time, over 900 providers have received the training, which now attracts participants from all over the country.

Although the current burden of managing epilepsy now seems to be falling heavily on primary care providers, Dr. Lado said he believes they can provide useful insight into their patients’ history and needs: “I think they are in a unique and impactful position, mostly to refer those patients who are still having seizures.”
 

Additional Resources for Patients and Providers

• American Academy of Pediatrics National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy 
• American Epilepsy Society  (CME courses designed to designed to increase knowledge about epilepsy diagnosis, treatment, and management; seizure first-aid; epilepsy stigma; and social determinants of health for people with epilepsy)  
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   .

Dr. Joshi, Dr. Kobau, and Dr. Lado report no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 1.1% of US adults have epilepsy. Although 89% report seeing a physician in the past year about their condition, only 62% of adults saw a neurologist or seizure specialist. 

These findings prompted Rosemary Kobau, MPH, the acting team lead for the CDC’s epilepsy program, to take a closer look at referral patterns by primary care providers in the United States. Using data from a 2018 online survey of US internists, pediatricians, family medicine physicians, and nurse practitioners, she found that 90% of providers would refer a patient with new-onset seizure to a neurologist.

She also noticed what she calls a “big red flag”: “We found that 40% of primary care providers did not indicate that they would refer their patient with epilepsy to a neurologist when their patient fails to respond to treatment, or if they have a change in seizure activity,” Dr. Kobau told this news organization. Individuals with uncontrolled seizures are at risk for multiple adverse health outcomes, along with emotional problems, social stigma, and decreased life expectancy. 

Factors that influenced primary care clinicians to refer to a neurologist included prompt availability of appointments, ability to talk to the neurologist, and whether a patient’s insurance covered specialty visits. Proximity of a specialist also was cited as a barrier, because neurologists can be hard to find outside of urban centers.

Wait lists for neurologist are not like to get shorter any time soon, according to a 2019 report from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). A 2013 workforce report from the AAN found 35 US states, representing 62% of the US population, had fewer neurologists than needed to meet demand. By 2025, demand is projected to exceed supply in 41 states. 

Much of the increasing demand for adult neurologists is driven by aging of the population, resulting in higher rates of stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia. But pediatric neurologists are also overwhelmed: Pediatric neurology is one of the top three pediatric subspecialties with the longest wait times. The shortage is exacerbated by difficulties in transitioning adolescents with epilepsy — many diagnosed early in life with neurodevelopmental and epileptic encephalopathy and problem lists that include learning disorders, behavioral issues, and other chronic medical problems — to adult epilepsy specialists. 

Although one of the solutions offered by the AAN is more training in epilepsy management for non-neurologists (such as CME programs developed by the American Epilepsy Society), many primary care providers are overwhelmed already. Still, primary care providers are well-positioned to help answer some of the most important questions about the management of patients with seizure disorders. 
 

How to Help

“There’s a lot the pediatrician can do when a child presents with seizures,” said Sucheta Joshi, MD, who serves as the medical director of the Neurological Institute Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Step one is helping to allay the fears of family members who witness a seizure. “They can talk about seizure safety, they can talk about first aid when a seizure happens, they can talk about what to do, what not to do,” she advised. Clinicians who see children can find resources for families on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy website, including a 24/7 helpline, information about local chapters of the Epilepsy Foundation, and first aid training for seizures. 

Fred Lado, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Norwell in Hempstead, New York, said that primary care clinicians have several decision points when it comes to their patients with epilepsy.

The first is whether to initiate medication after the first episode of seizure. Studies show that the risk for a second seizure decreases in patients started on anticonvulsant therapy after a first event, but many clinicians don›t want to commit patients to long-term therapy without more evidence that the patient has epilepsy. Studies have shown that delaying therapy until a second seizure occurs doesn›t negatively affect quality of life and long-term prognosis. 

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) advised treatment for patients with two or more unprovoked seizures but revised its recommendation in 2014 to begin treatment after a first seizure for individuals at high risk for a second seizure. History of a brain insult related to a stroke, mass lesion in the brain, or trauma are risk factors for a second seizure, whereas seizures provoked by a concussion, alcohol withdrawal, or exposure to toxins carry low risk for additional episodes.

Dr. Lado also raised the importance of taking a good history from a patient presenting for medical care for a new-onset seizure to determine whether the recent episode is really the first such incident.

Up to half of patients presenting to emergency departments for convulsive seizures have a history of a preceding nonmotor seizure that the patient or their family members have failed to identify. As many as 60% of people with epilepsy have focal seizures, but the majority of these are nonmotor seizures. As a result, these patients often go without a diagnosis until they develop bilateral tonic-clonic seizures — by which time they may already been injured during a seizure or had an accident while driving.

In terms of imaging and other workup that should be performed prior to the first appointment with a pediatric neurologist or epilepsy specialist, Dr. Joshi generally recommends EEG. She also prefers MRI over CT, which is better for finding lesions that tend to cause seizures in kids such as developmental abnormalities like a cortical malformation or a perinatal process. Obtaining an MRI prior to seeing the neurologist is elective, depending on whether the history and clinical presentation suggest a focal lesion.

For adults, Dr. Lado also recommends an EEG and MRI to start but rarely advises other laboratory studies. When patients present to the emergency department with a new-onset seizure, the workup commonly includes a chemistry panel to rule out hypoglycemia or electrolyte abnormalities. But in the outpatient setting, where a patient describes symptoms of a seizure that occurred a week ago or longer, Dr. Lado said the yield of such assessments is low. 

“I think the labs are often more useful as you’re thinking about an anticonvulsant,” Dr. Lado said. Particularly for a patient who is facing a long wait to see specialist, obtaining baseline liver enzymes and a complete blood cell count is worthwhile, because many antiseizure medications can cause anemia or liver damage.

Dr. Lado agreed that referral to a specialist is critical for patients with drug-resistant seizures, defined by the ILAE as seizures that persist despite the use of two or more anticonvulsants. 

“One of the great problems in epilepsy care is a sort of sense of complacency,” he said. Some of his own patients have become comfortable with their epilepsy diagnosis and profess to be untroubled by having a few seizures per year. In 2018, Dr. Kobau was a co-author on a study reporting that less than half of US adults taking seizure medications were seizure-free in the past year. 

This scenario is an opportunity for primary care providers to help determine whether their patients are taking their antiseizure medication correctly. A referral to a specialist might not be necessary if the seizures are occurring because the patient’s prescription ran out. Similarly, if a patient doesn’t take the medication because of unpleasant side effects, raising the dose won’t help. 

Dr. Lado’s advice is to explore why the patient’s management plan is not working and make adjustments tailored to their needs. The solution might be as simple as changing the patient to an extended-release formulation to lower the number of daily doses needed, he said.

But for patients who do have recurrent seizures despite good adherence, Dr. Lado strongly urges a referral to an epilepsy specialist. He serves as president of the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC), a network of more than 260 epilepsy centers in the United States that offer the services of epileptologists, neurosurgeons, neuropsychologists, nurse specialists, EEG technologists, social workers, and others with training and experience in epilepsy care. In addition to adjusting and monitoring medications, patients seen at an NAEC can be evaluated for surgery, neurostimulators, and ketogenic diets.
 

Improving Self-Management

Another role that primary care can play is promoting self-efficacy among patients with epilepsy.

“Providers have historically tended to focus on medication adherence alone, ignoring other health enhancing behaviors, even just sleep hygiene,” Dr. Kobau said. But adequate sleep, regular exercise, a healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and excessive alcohol, and stress management are all important for seizure management. 

In 2007, CDC launched the Managing Epilepsy Well (MEW) Network, which has the mission of advancing self-management research in collaboration with patients with epilepsy as well as a broad range of healthcare providers. “It’s a patient-driven kind of approach consistent with community-based, participatory practice research,” said Dr. Kobau, who oversees the initiative.

The MEW network, which consists of six prevention research centers funded by CDC, has piloted and evaluated several evidence-based programs that can help patients better control their epilepsy. 

One such intervention is Project Uplift, which delivers mindfulness-based cognitive-behavioral therapy in a virtual group setting. Behavioral therapy is important for people with seizure disorders, whose risk for depression is more than twice that of the general population. The initial trial found the intervention was effective in reducing depressive symptoms in participants, and research since has focused on adapting the program to provide culturally appropriate care to underserved populations. The eight sessions, held weekly, are available in both English and Spanish.

Another program, HOBSCOTCH, allows patients to meet one-on-one virtually with a trained coach to work on skills for improving attention and memory, common problems among people with epilepsy.

MINDSET involves a tablet-based clinical decision tool that patients can use to track their self-management behaviors, such as taking their medications, seizure triggers, symptoms of depression, and keeping their clinic appointments. It also helps them monitor whether they are getting adequate sleep, reducing their stress, and maintaining social networks. The tool generates a printable action plan for patients to prompt discussion and shared decision-making between patient and clinician to prioritize behavioral issues, set goals, and monitor changes over time.

Clinicians can refer patients to any of the MEW interventions, or patients can enroll themselves online.

 

Emerging Approaches

The AAN’s 2019 report promoted use of technological solutions to bridge the gap between primary care providers and scarce — as well as distant — neurologists. Many health systems support e-consults between clinicians, allowing simple discussions about medications and advice about testing recommended prior to a neurology visit. Initially developed for treatment for infection with hepatitis C virus, Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) uses a central hub of specialists to support primary care providers via teleconference to conduct case reviews and didactic sessions. 

Much of Dr. Joshi’s work has focused on ways to coordinate care to children who live far from a pediatric epilepsy center. In a previous position at the University of Michigan, her team was one of four sites funded by the AAP’s National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy to pilot an intervention using telehealth. Implemented in 2017-2019, the initiative used quality improvement methodology to explore a model where patients went to the office of their primary care provider so that both could participate in the call with a neurologist.

The strategy was successful, resulting in reduced out-of-pocket costs, missed school hours, and missed work hours. Patient satisfaction was high (97%), and more parents in the intervention group than the control group agreed that it was easier to obtain appointments with specialists (95% vs 65%, respectively).

And since the pandemic, in-home telehealth visits have become commonplace, adding to the potential convenience and cost savings of telemedicine. 

CDC has invested in Project ECHO as a training program for nonspecialist providers to manage epilepsy. Based at the University of Cincinnati, the initial pilot from 2017 to 2019 trained primary care providers in Ohio and neighboring states using monthly 1-hour sessions via Zoom. According to Dr. Kobau, “Of those 164 primary care providers, 97% reported higher interest in improving their care of patients with epilepsy, and at least 98% reported that they were more confident in treating their patients with epilepsy.” Since that time, over 900 providers have received the training, which now attracts participants from all over the country.

Although the current burden of managing epilepsy now seems to be falling heavily on primary care providers, Dr. Lado said he believes they can provide useful insight into their patients’ history and needs: “I think they are in a unique and impactful position, mostly to refer those patients who are still having seizures.”
 

Additional Resources for Patients and Providers

• American Academy of Pediatrics National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy 
• American Epilepsy Society  (CME courses designed to designed to increase knowledge about epilepsy diagnosis, treatment, and management; seizure first-aid; epilepsy stigma; and social determinants of health for people with epilepsy)  
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   .

Dr. Joshi, Dr. Kobau, and Dr. Lado report no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a significantly greater risk for heart disease than that of the general non-SCI population, especially among those with severe disability, new observational data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service on 5083 patients with cervical, thoracic, or lumbar SCI (mean age, 58; 75% men) and 1:3 age- and sex-matched non-SCI controls.
• The study endpoint was new-onset myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), or atrial fibrillation (AF) during a mean follow-up of 4.3 years.
• Covariates included low income, living in an urban or rural area, alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity engagement, body mass index, and blood pressure; comorbidities included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 169 MI events (7.3 per 1000 person-years), 426 HF events (18.8 per 1000 person-years), and 158 AF events (6.8 per 1000 person-years) occurred among SCI survivors.
• After adjustment, SCI survivors had a higher risk for MI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.41), HF (aHR, 2.24), and AF (aHR, 1.84) than that of controls.
• Among SCI survivors with a disability, the risks increased with disability severity, and those with severe disability had the highest risks for MI (aHR, 3.74), HF (aHR, 3.96), and AF (aHR, 3.32).
• Cervical and lumbar SCI survivors had an increased risk for heart disease compared with controls regardless of disability, and the risk was slightly higher for those with a disability; for cervical SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs for MI, HF, and AF, respectively, were 2.30, 2.05, and 1.73; for lumbar SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs were 2.79, 2.35, and 2.47.
• Thoracic SCI survivors with disability had a higher risk for MI (aHR, 5.62) and HF (aHR, 3.31) than controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“[T]he recognition and treatment of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors must be reinforced in the SCI population, [and] proper rehabilitation and education should be considered to prevent autonomic dysreflexia or orthostatic hypotension,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Christopher R. West, PhD, and Jacquelyn J. Cragg, PhD, both of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, noted that clinical guidelines for cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease after SCI don’t include approaches to help mitigate the risk for cardiac events such as those reported in the study; therefore, they wrote, the findings “should act as ‘call-to-arms’ to researchers and clinicians to shift gears from tradition and begin studying the clinical efficacy of neuraxial therapies that could help restore autonomic balance [in SCI], such as targeted neuromodulation.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jung Eun Yoo, MD, PhD of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The database was not designed for the SCI population, so data are incomplete. The incidence of thoracic SCI was particularly low. Because SCI survivors may have impaired perception of chest pain in ischemic heart disease, those with asymptomatic or silent heart disease may not have been captured during follow-up. All study participants were Korean, so the findings may not be generalizable to other ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea. The study authors and the editorialists had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a significantly greater risk for heart disease than that of the general non-SCI population, especially among those with severe disability, new observational data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service on 5083 patients with cervical, thoracic, or lumbar SCI (mean age, 58; 75% men) and 1:3 age- and sex-matched non-SCI controls.
• The study endpoint was new-onset myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), or atrial fibrillation (AF) during a mean follow-up of 4.3 years.
• Covariates included low income, living in an urban or rural area, alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity engagement, body mass index, and blood pressure; comorbidities included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 169 MI events (7.3 per 1000 person-years), 426 HF events (18.8 per 1000 person-years), and 158 AF events (6.8 per 1000 person-years) occurred among SCI survivors.
• After adjustment, SCI survivors had a higher risk for MI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.41), HF (aHR, 2.24), and AF (aHR, 1.84) than that of controls.
• Among SCI survivors with a disability, the risks increased with disability severity, and those with severe disability had the highest risks for MI (aHR, 3.74), HF (aHR, 3.96), and AF (aHR, 3.32).
• Cervical and lumbar SCI survivors had an increased risk for heart disease compared with controls regardless of disability, and the risk was slightly higher for those with a disability; for cervical SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs for MI, HF, and AF, respectively, were 2.30, 2.05, and 1.73; for lumbar SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs were 2.79, 2.35, and 2.47.
• Thoracic SCI survivors with disability had a higher risk for MI (aHR, 5.62) and HF (aHR, 3.31) than controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“[T]he recognition and treatment of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors must be reinforced in the SCI population, [and] proper rehabilitation and education should be considered to prevent autonomic dysreflexia or orthostatic hypotension,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Christopher R. West, PhD, and Jacquelyn J. Cragg, PhD, both of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, noted that clinical guidelines for cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease after SCI don’t include approaches to help mitigate the risk for cardiac events such as those reported in the study; therefore, they wrote, the findings “should act as ‘call-to-arms’ to researchers and clinicians to shift gears from tradition and begin studying the clinical efficacy of neuraxial therapies that could help restore autonomic balance [in SCI], such as targeted neuromodulation.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jung Eun Yoo, MD, PhD of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The database was not designed for the SCI population, so data are incomplete. The incidence of thoracic SCI was particularly low. Because SCI survivors may have impaired perception of chest pain in ischemic heart disease, those with asymptomatic or silent heart disease may not have been captured during follow-up. All study participants were Korean, so the findings may not be generalizable to other ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea. The study authors and the editorialists had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a significantly greater risk for heart disease than that of the general non-SCI population, especially among those with severe disability, new observational data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service on 5083 patients with cervical, thoracic, or lumbar SCI (mean age, 58; 75% men) and 1:3 age- and sex-matched non-SCI controls.
• The study endpoint was new-onset myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), or atrial fibrillation (AF) during a mean follow-up of 4.3 years.
• Covariates included low income, living in an urban or rural area, alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity engagement, body mass index, and blood pressure; comorbidities included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 169 MI events (7.3 per 1000 person-years), 426 HF events (18.8 per 1000 person-years), and 158 AF events (6.8 per 1000 person-years) occurred among SCI survivors.
• After adjustment, SCI survivors had a higher risk for MI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.41), HF (aHR, 2.24), and AF (aHR, 1.84) than that of controls.
• Among SCI survivors with a disability, the risks increased with disability severity, and those with severe disability had the highest risks for MI (aHR, 3.74), HF (aHR, 3.96), and AF (aHR, 3.32).
• Cervical and lumbar SCI survivors had an increased risk for heart disease compared with controls regardless of disability, and the risk was slightly higher for those with a disability; for cervical SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs for MI, HF, and AF, respectively, were 2.30, 2.05, and 1.73; for lumbar SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs were 2.79, 2.35, and 2.47.
• Thoracic SCI survivors with disability had a higher risk for MI (aHR, 5.62) and HF (aHR, 3.31) than controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“[T]he recognition and treatment of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors must be reinforced in the SCI population, [and] proper rehabilitation and education should be considered to prevent autonomic dysreflexia or orthostatic hypotension,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Christopher R. West, PhD, and Jacquelyn J. Cragg, PhD, both of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, noted that clinical guidelines for cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease after SCI don’t include approaches to help mitigate the risk for cardiac events such as those reported in the study; therefore, they wrote, the findings “should act as ‘call-to-arms’ to researchers and clinicians to shift gears from tradition and begin studying the clinical efficacy of neuraxial therapies that could help restore autonomic balance [in SCI], such as targeted neuromodulation.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jung Eun Yoo, MD, PhD of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The database was not designed for the SCI population, so data are incomplete. The incidence of thoracic SCI was particularly low. Because SCI survivors may have impaired perception of chest pain in ischemic heart disease, those with asymptomatic or silent heart disease may not have been captured during follow-up. All study participants were Korean, so the findings may not be generalizable to other ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea. The study authors and the editorialists had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prednisolone may be an effective bridge therapy to ease withdrawal symptoms and improve reversal for patients with migraine whose headaches persist despite them taking an abundance of acute headache medications, a condition known as medication-overuse headache (MOH), an observational study out of South Korea has found.

The study, a post-hoc analysis of the RELEASE multicenter observational cohort study of MOH patients in South Korea, found that patients who took prednisolone as a bridge therapy in the early phase of withdrawal from headache medications, or detoxification, had statistically significant higher rates of MOH reversal at 3 months after enrollment than those who did not, 73.8% versus 57.8% (P = .034)  

Seoul National Univeristy College of Medicine

The reversal trend also was noted at 1 month after treatment, the study authors, led by Mi Ji Lee, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, wrote. “Although an observational study cannot draw a definitive conclusion, our study supports the use of prednisolone for the treatment of MOH in a real-world setting,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
 

Study methods

The study was a post hoc analysis of the RELEASE study, which stands for Registry for Load and Management of Medication Overuse Headache. RELEASE is a multicenter observational cohort study that has been ongoing in South Korea since April 2020. The post hoc analysis included 309 patients, 59 of whom received prednisolone at a varying dose of 10-40 mg a day, with a varying course of 5-14 days. About 74% of patients (228 of 309) completed the 3-month follow-up period, including 41 in the prednisolone group.

The study used three different forms of medication withdrawal before the patients started prednisolone therapy: abrupt discontinuation; gradual discontinuation concurrent with starting prednisolone; and no withdrawal.

Because of the observational nature of the RELEASE study, participating physicians prescribed prednisolone at their own discretion. The study authors noted prednisolone use was neither randomized nor controlled, which they acknowledged as a limitation.

Dr. Lee and colleagues also acknowledged that newer calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists may not require detoxification to reverse MOH, but that those therapies are not always available for a variety of reasons, such as reimbursement restrictions, regional distribution issues, and financial issues.

The study also evaluated a number of secondary outcomes. For example, 72% of prednisolone patients achieved MOH reversal 1 month after starting treatment versus 54.9% of the nonprednisolone patients. (P = .33). Prednisolone users also had greater reductions in acute medication days (AMD) at 1 month and scores on headache impact test-6 (HIT-6) at 6 months.

Dr. Lee and colleagues noted that the concept of detoxification, or discontinuing medication overuse, as a treatment for MOH has been controversial due to a lack of high-quality evidence to support the approach. “Nevertheless,” they wrote, “several experts still put withdrawal of medication overuse as an important step of MOH treatment in clinical practice despite limited evidence.”
 

Commentary

Alan Rapoport, MD, a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, noted a number of limitations with the study. “It wasn’t a unified population of patients,” he said, “which makes it a little harder to say this medicine worked — worked on whom?” The lack of a treatment regimen — the varied dosing and treatment durations, along with the different withdrawal approaches — are further limitations, Dr. Rapoport said.

Nonetheless, the study is an important addition to the evidence on how to manage medication withdrawal in MOH, said Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society and founder and director emeritus of the New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, who has a keen interest in MOH research.

“I think this shows to some extent, although it doesn’t prove it because it’s a whole mixture of patients who were all treated differently by different doctors, but when you put them all together the patients who took steroids did better than the patients who did not,” he said. “The study authors did the best they could with the information they had.”

He termed the study “well-done by well-known authors in South Korea.” As medications such as CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP and its receptors become more available, MOH patients “may not need actual detoxification or steroids in their treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said.

Dr. Lee and co-authors have no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. He disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica.

Prednisolone may be an effective bridge therapy to ease withdrawal symptoms and improve reversal for patients with migraine whose headaches persist despite them taking an abundance of acute headache medications, a condition known as medication-overuse headache (MOH), an observational study out of South Korea has found.

The study, a post-hoc analysis of the RELEASE multicenter observational cohort study of MOH patients in South Korea, found that patients who took prednisolone as a bridge therapy in the early phase of withdrawal from headache medications, or detoxification, had statistically significant higher rates of MOH reversal at 3 months after enrollment than those who did not, 73.8% versus 57.8% (P = .034)  

Seoul National Univeristy College of Medicine

The reversal trend also was noted at 1 month after treatment, the study authors, led by Mi Ji Lee, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, wrote. “Although an observational study cannot draw a definitive conclusion, our study supports the use of prednisolone for the treatment of MOH in a real-world setting,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
 

Study methods

The study was a post hoc analysis of the RELEASE study, which stands for Registry for Load and Management of Medication Overuse Headache. RELEASE is a multicenter observational cohort study that has been ongoing in South Korea since April 2020. The post hoc analysis included 309 patients, 59 of whom received prednisolone at a varying dose of 10-40 mg a day, with a varying course of 5-14 days. About 74% of patients (228 of 309) completed the 3-month follow-up period, including 41 in the prednisolone group.

The study used three different forms of medication withdrawal before the patients started prednisolone therapy: abrupt discontinuation; gradual discontinuation concurrent with starting prednisolone; and no withdrawal.

Because of the observational nature of the RELEASE study, participating physicians prescribed prednisolone at their own discretion. The study authors noted prednisolone use was neither randomized nor controlled, which they acknowledged as a limitation.

Dr. Lee and colleagues also acknowledged that newer calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists may not require detoxification to reverse MOH, but that those therapies are not always available for a variety of reasons, such as reimbursement restrictions, regional distribution issues, and financial issues.

The study also evaluated a number of secondary outcomes. For example, 72% of prednisolone patients achieved MOH reversal 1 month after starting treatment versus 54.9% of the nonprednisolone patients. (P = .33). Prednisolone users also had greater reductions in acute medication days (AMD) at 1 month and scores on headache impact test-6 (HIT-6) at 6 months.

Dr. Lee and colleagues noted that the concept of detoxification, or discontinuing medication overuse, as a treatment for MOH has been controversial due to a lack of high-quality evidence to support the approach. “Nevertheless,” they wrote, “several experts still put withdrawal of medication overuse as an important step of MOH treatment in clinical practice despite limited evidence.”
 

Commentary

Alan Rapoport, MD, a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, noted a number of limitations with the study. “It wasn’t a unified population of patients,” he said, “which makes it a little harder to say this medicine worked — worked on whom?” The lack of a treatment regimen — the varied dosing and treatment durations, along with the different withdrawal approaches — are further limitations, Dr. Rapoport said.

Nonetheless, the study is an important addition to the evidence on how to manage medication withdrawal in MOH, said Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society and founder and director emeritus of the New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, who has a keen interest in MOH research.

“I think this shows to some extent, although it doesn’t prove it because it’s a whole mixture of patients who were all treated differently by different doctors, but when you put them all together the patients who took steroids did better than the patients who did not,” he said. “The study authors did the best they could with the information they had.”

He termed the study “well-done by well-known authors in South Korea.” As medications such as CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP and its receptors become more available, MOH patients “may not need actual detoxification or steroids in their treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said.

Dr. Lee and co-authors have no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. He disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica.

Prednisolone may be an effective bridge therapy to ease withdrawal symptoms and improve reversal for patients with migraine whose headaches persist despite them taking an abundance of acute headache medications, a condition known as medication-overuse headache (MOH), an observational study out of South Korea has found.

The study, a post-hoc analysis of the RELEASE multicenter observational cohort study of MOH patients in South Korea, found that patients who took prednisolone as a bridge therapy in the early phase of withdrawal from headache medications, or detoxification, had statistically significant higher rates of MOH reversal at 3 months after enrollment than those who did not, 73.8% versus 57.8% (P = .034)  

Seoul National Univeristy College of Medicine

The reversal trend also was noted at 1 month after treatment, the study authors, led by Mi Ji Lee, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, wrote. “Although an observational study cannot draw a definitive conclusion, our study supports the use of prednisolone for the treatment of MOH in a real-world setting,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
 

Study methods

The study was a post hoc analysis of the RELEASE study, which stands for Registry for Load and Management of Medication Overuse Headache. RELEASE is a multicenter observational cohort study that has been ongoing in South Korea since April 2020. The post hoc analysis included 309 patients, 59 of whom received prednisolone at a varying dose of 10-40 mg a day, with a varying course of 5-14 days. About 74% of patients (228 of 309) completed the 3-month follow-up period, including 41 in the prednisolone group.

The study used three different forms of medication withdrawal before the patients started prednisolone therapy: abrupt discontinuation; gradual discontinuation concurrent with starting prednisolone; and no withdrawal.

Because of the observational nature of the RELEASE study, participating physicians prescribed prednisolone at their own discretion. The study authors noted prednisolone use was neither randomized nor controlled, which they acknowledged as a limitation.

Dr. Lee and colleagues also acknowledged that newer calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists may not require detoxification to reverse MOH, but that those therapies are not always available for a variety of reasons, such as reimbursement restrictions, regional distribution issues, and financial issues.

The study also evaluated a number of secondary outcomes. For example, 72% of prednisolone patients achieved MOH reversal 1 month after starting treatment versus 54.9% of the nonprednisolone patients. (P = .33). Prednisolone users also had greater reductions in acute medication days (AMD) at 1 month and scores on headache impact test-6 (HIT-6) at 6 months.

Dr. Lee and colleagues noted that the concept of detoxification, or discontinuing medication overuse, as a treatment for MOH has been controversial due to a lack of high-quality evidence to support the approach. “Nevertheless,” they wrote, “several experts still put withdrawal of medication overuse as an important step of MOH treatment in clinical practice despite limited evidence.”
 

Commentary

Alan Rapoport, MD, a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, noted a number of limitations with the study. “It wasn’t a unified population of patients,” he said, “which makes it a little harder to say this medicine worked — worked on whom?” The lack of a treatment regimen — the varied dosing and treatment durations, along with the different withdrawal approaches — are further limitations, Dr. Rapoport said.

Nonetheless, the study is an important addition to the evidence on how to manage medication withdrawal in MOH, said Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society and founder and director emeritus of the New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, who has a keen interest in MOH research.

“I think this shows to some extent, although it doesn’t prove it because it’s a whole mixture of patients who were all treated differently by different doctors, but when you put them all together the patients who took steroids did better than the patients who did not,” he said. “The study authors did the best they could with the information they had.”

He termed the study “well-done by well-known authors in South Korea.” As medications such as CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP and its receptors become more available, MOH patients “may not need actual detoxification or steroids in their treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said.

Dr. Lee and co-authors have no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. He disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica.

About one-quarter of all adult day services center (ADSC) participants have dementia, and the prevalence of dementia in ADSCs that specialize in the disorder is more than 40%, a new US National Health Statistics Report revealed.

ADSCs are a growing sector of the US home- and community-based long-term care delivery system, providing daytime services to adults with disabilities who often have multiple chronic conditions, including various types of dementia, according to report authors Priyanka Singha, MPH, and colleagues at the US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics in Bethesda, Maryland.

Dementia often leads to the transition to receiving long-term care services, such as nursing home care. Delaying institutionalization is a primary goal of ADSCs, so they also try to meet the needs of a growing population of community-dwelling adults with dementia.

Survey responses from 1800 ADSCs across the United States showed that overall, 42.2% of participants had dementia in ADSCs specializing in dementia care, while 22.7% of participants in nonspecialized ADSCs also had dementia.

Dementia was more prevalent in the Midwest and West, where nearly one half of participants in specialized centers had dementia.

Nevertheless, the overall prevalence of dementia in ADSCs was similar across US regions, with a slightly lower percentage in the West.
 

Positive Outcomes

The new report used data from the ADSC component of the 2020 National Post-acute and Long-term Care Study collected from January 2020 through mid-July 2021. About 1800 ADSCs from a census of 5500 ADSCs were included and weighted to be nationally representative.

The authors compared dementia prevalence among participants in ADSCs that provide specialized care for dementia with other ADSCs by census region, metropolitan statistical area (MSA) status, chain affiliation, and ownership type.

MSA is a core urban area population of 50,000 or more. ADSCs that specialize in dementia care have specially trained staff, activities, and facilities. They offer social activities, including art and music therapy, dementia-appropriate games, and group exercises, as well as respite care for unpaid caregivers. The survey found that 14% of ADSCs reported specializing in dementia.

The investigators also found that the percentage of ADSC participants with dementia, regardless of center specialization, was higher in the Midwest (32.1%), Northeast (28.5%), and South (24.5%) than in the West (21.1%).

The percentage of participants with dementia in specialized centers was higher in the Midwest (49.5%) and West (48.8%) than in the Northeast (31.9%) and in nonchain centers (50.5%) than in chain-affiliated centers (30.4%).

In addition, the percentage of participants with dementia, regardless of specialization, was higher in nonchain ADSCs (25%) than in chain-affiliated centers (20.1%). In addition, the percentage of participants with dementia in nonspecialized centers was higher in nonchain centers (25%) than in chain-affiliated centers (20.1%).

Finally, the research revealed that the percentage of participants with dementia, regardless of specialization, was higher in nonprofit ADSCs (28.7%) than for-profit centers (21%).

“These findings indicate that ADSCs in MSAs, nonprofit organizations, and nonchain centers provide services to a higher proportion of participants with dementia, particularly among centers that specialize in dementia care,” the investigators wrote.

Whereas “caregivers manage prescription medications, help with activities of daily living, and offer nutritional diets, exercise, and social engagement, ADSCs play a role in providing this type of care for people with dementia while also offering respite for their unpaid caregivers,” they noted.

Overall, they concluded that ADSCs provide positive outcomes for both family caregivers and people with dementia.

They noted that the study’s limitations include the use of cross-sectional data, which cannot show effectiveness for participants receiving care in specialized centers or be used to analyze relationships between other participant-level sociodemographic or health characteristics and specialized dementia care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About one-quarter of all adult day services center (ADSC) participants have dementia, and the prevalence of dementia in ADSCs that specialize in the disorder is more than 40%, a new US National Health Statistics Report revealed.

ADSCs are a growing sector of the US home- and community-based long-term care delivery system, providing daytime services to adults with disabilities who often have multiple chronic conditions, including various types of dementia, according to report authors Priyanka Singha, MPH, and colleagues at the US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics in Bethesda, Maryland.

Dementia often leads to the transition to receiving long-term care services, such as nursing home care. Delaying institutionalization is a primary goal of ADSCs, so they also try to meet the needs of a growing population of community-dwelling adults with dementia.

Survey responses from 1800 ADSCs across the United States showed that overall, 42.2% of participants had dementia in ADSCs specializing in dementia care, while 22.7% of participants in nonspecialized ADSCs also had dementia.

Dementia was more prevalent in the Midwest and West, where nearly one half of participants in specialized centers had dementia.

Nevertheless, the overall prevalence of dementia in ADSCs was similar across US regions, with a slightly lower percentage in the West.
 

Positive Outcomes

The new report used data from the ADSC component of the 2020 National Post-acute and Long-term Care Study collected from January 2020 through mid-July 2021. About 1800 ADSCs from a census of 5500 ADSCs were included and weighted to be nationally representative.

The authors compared dementia prevalence among participants in ADSCs that provide specialized care for dementia with other ADSCs by census region, metropolitan statistical area (MSA) status, chain affiliation, and ownership type.

MSA is a core urban area population of 50,000 or more. ADSCs that specialize in dementia care have specially trained staff, activities, and facilities. They offer social activities, including art and music therapy, dementia-appropriate games, and group exercises, as well as respite care for unpaid caregivers. The survey found that 14% of ADSCs reported specializing in dementia.

The investigators also found that the percentage of ADSC participants with dementia, regardless of center specialization, was higher in the Midwest (32.1%), Northeast (28.5%), and South (24.5%) than in the West (21.1%).

The percentage of participants with dementia in specialized centers was higher in the Midwest (49.5%) and West (48.8%) than in the Northeast (31.9%) and in nonchain centers (50.5%) than in chain-affiliated centers (30.4%).

In addition, the percentage of participants with dementia, regardless of specialization, was higher in nonchain ADSCs (25%) than in chain-affiliated centers (20.1%). In addition, the percentage of participants with dementia in nonspecialized centers was higher in nonchain centers (25%) than in chain-affiliated centers (20.1%).

Finally, the research revealed that the percentage of participants with dementia, regardless of specialization, was higher in nonprofit ADSCs (28.7%) than for-profit centers (21%).

“These findings indicate that ADSCs in MSAs, nonprofit organizations, and nonchain centers provide services to a higher proportion of participants with dementia, particularly among centers that specialize in dementia care,” the investigators wrote.

Whereas “caregivers manage prescription medications, help with activities of daily living, and offer nutritional diets, exercise, and social engagement, ADSCs play a role in providing this type of care for people with dementia while also offering respite for their unpaid caregivers,” they noted.

Overall, they concluded that ADSCs provide positive outcomes for both family caregivers and people with dementia.

They noted that the study’s limitations include the use of cross-sectional data, which cannot show effectiveness for participants receiving care in specialized centers or be used to analyze relationships between other participant-level sociodemographic or health characteristics and specialized dementia care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About one-quarter of all adult day services center (ADSC) participants have dementia, and the prevalence of dementia in ADSCs that specialize in the disorder is more than 40%, a new US National Health Statistics Report revealed.

ADSCs are a growing sector of the US home- and community-based long-term care delivery system, providing daytime services to adults with disabilities who often have multiple chronic conditions, including various types of dementia, according to report authors Priyanka Singha, MPH, and colleagues at the US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics in Bethesda, Maryland.

Dementia often leads to the transition to receiving long-term care services, such as nursing home care. Delaying institutionalization is a primary goal of ADSCs, so they also try to meet the needs of a growing population of community-dwelling adults with dementia.

Survey responses from 1800 ADSCs across the United States showed that overall, 42.2% of participants had dementia in ADSCs specializing in dementia care, while 22.7% of participants in nonspecialized ADSCs also had dementia.

Dementia was more prevalent in the Midwest and West, where nearly one half of participants in specialized centers had dementia.

Nevertheless, the overall prevalence of dementia in ADSCs was similar across US regions, with a slightly lower percentage in the West.
 

Positive Outcomes

The new report used data from the ADSC component of the 2020 National Post-acute and Long-term Care Study collected from January 2020 through mid-July 2021. About 1800 ADSCs from a census of 5500 ADSCs were included and weighted to be nationally representative.

The authors compared dementia prevalence among participants in ADSCs that provide specialized care for dementia with other ADSCs by census region, metropolitan statistical area (MSA) status, chain affiliation, and ownership type.

MSA is a core urban area population of 50,000 or more. ADSCs that specialize in dementia care have specially trained staff, activities, and facilities. They offer social activities, including art and music therapy, dementia-appropriate games, and group exercises, as well as respite care for unpaid caregivers. The survey found that 14% of ADSCs reported specializing in dementia.

The investigators also found that the percentage of ADSC participants with dementia, regardless of center specialization, was higher in the Midwest (32.1%), Northeast (28.5%), and South (24.5%) than in the West (21.1%).

The percentage of participants with dementia in specialized centers was higher in the Midwest (49.5%) and West (48.8%) than in the Northeast (31.9%) and in nonchain centers (50.5%) than in chain-affiliated centers (30.4%).

In addition, the percentage of participants with dementia, regardless of specialization, was higher in nonchain ADSCs (25%) than in chain-affiliated centers (20.1%). In addition, the percentage of participants with dementia in nonspecialized centers was higher in nonchain centers (25%) than in chain-affiliated centers (20.1%).

Finally, the research revealed that the percentage of participants with dementia, regardless of specialization, was higher in nonprofit ADSCs (28.7%) than for-profit centers (21%).

“These findings indicate that ADSCs in MSAs, nonprofit organizations, and nonchain centers provide services to a higher proportion of participants with dementia, particularly among centers that specialize in dementia care,” the investigators wrote.

Whereas “caregivers manage prescription medications, help with activities of daily living, and offer nutritional diets, exercise, and social engagement, ADSCs play a role in providing this type of care for people with dementia while also offering respite for their unpaid caregivers,” they noted.

Overall, they concluded that ADSCs provide positive outcomes for both family caregivers and people with dementia.

They noted that the study’s limitations include the use of cross-sectional data, which cannot show effectiveness for participants receiving care in specialized centers or be used to analyze relationships between other participant-level sociodemographic or health characteristics and specialized dementia care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.