Neurology Reviews

A recent article in Cell & Bioscience suggested that regular coffee consumption can reduce the risk of COVID infections.

The study does make some interesting points about the benefits of coffee’s different polyphenols and antioxidants and their effects on different COVID variants. Most of it is based on lab data, although one section, using serum from coffee versus water drinkers, did find that it was more effective at inhibiting the virions. Caffeinated versus decaffeinated didn’t matter.

I’m not saying coffee doesn’t impair the virus. The data are worth looking at. But the majority of adults in North America, Europe, and pretty much the entire planet drink coffee on a regular basis. A large number of them still caught COVID. Would they have had worse cases if they didn’t drink coffee? Maybe, maybe not.

The problem here is that, as always, preliminary data like this get pushed into mass media, making it sound like “COFFEE CURES COVID!!!” Never mind that that’s not what the article said, but it sure gets clicks and retweets and FaceBook “likes.”

Suddenly fringe groups are claiming the coffee cure was there all along, and hidden from them by the evil government-pharma-medical cartel. Others claim the research is flawed because of this or that. The signal gets drowned out by the noise.

Definitely, food can be a medicine. Look at all the benefits proven of the Mediterranean diet. Coffee may help, especially if we can identify and isolate the specific components that reduce COVID risk. But, as they always say at the end, the study is preliminary and further research is needed.

Once or twice a year, an adult with epilepsy comes in, waving a copy of the ketogenic diet around and upset that I never tried it on them — again proof of the evil government-pharma-medical cartel that I’m in league with. I calm them down and explain the diet in detail. Maybe 50% of them decide to go ahead with it. In 25 years of practice, my record for an otherwise normal adult sticking with it is 5 days.

You don’t have to go too far back to remember Linus Pauling, an absolutely brilliant scientist, but not the best of nutritionists. With two Nobel prizes behind him, he took a stab at medicine in the 1970s, arguing that megadoses of vitamin C worked for the common cold. While it may be good for us, and certainly most people like orange juice, but those claims about the common cold never panned out. In fact, we’re no closer to curing it now than we were then.

Just because something seems promising in early studies doesn’t mean it will pan out. It might, but this doesn’t mean the “truth” is being maliciously hidden by an evil cartel. It just means we have (as always) more to learn.

I’ll still drink my single cup of coffee every weekday morning. I’m a creature of habit, and heaven knows I need the caffeine. If it also boosts my immune system, so much the better.

Besides, we still have that universal antimicrobial called chicken soup.
 

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

A recent article in Cell & Bioscience suggested that regular coffee consumption can reduce the risk of COVID infections.

The study does make some interesting points about the benefits of coffee’s different polyphenols and antioxidants and their effects on different COVID variants. Most of it is based on lab data, although one section, using serum from coffee versus water drinkers, did find that it was more effective at inhibiting the virions. Caffeinated versus decaffeinated didn’t matter.

I’m not saying coffee doesn’t impair the virus. The data are worth looking at. But the majority of adults in North America, Europe, and pretty much the entire planet drink coffee on a regular basis. A large number of them still caught COVID. Would they have had worse cases if they didn’t drink coffee? Maybe, maybe not.

The problem here is that, as always, preliminary data like this get pushed into mass media, making it sound like “COFFEE CURES COVID!!!” Never mind that that’s not what the article said, but it sure gets clicks and retweets and FaceBook “likes.”

Suddenly fringe groups are claiming the coffee cure was there all along, and hidden from them by the evil government-pharma-medical cartel. Others claim the research is flawed because of this or that. The signal gets drowned out by the noise.

Definitely, food can be a medicine. Look at all the benefits proven of the Mediterranean diet. Coffee may help, especially if we can identify and isolate the specific components that reduce COVID risk. But, as they always say at the end, the study is preliminary and further research is needed.

Once or twice a year, an adult with epilepsy comes in, waving a copy of the ketogenic diet around and upset that I never tried it on them — again proof of the evil government-pharma-medical cartel that I’m in league with. I calm them down and explain the diet in detail. Maybe 50% of them decide to go ahead with it. In 25 years of practice, my record for an otherwise normal adult sticking with it is 5 days.

You don’t have to go too far back to remember Linus Pauling, an absolutely brilliant scientist, but not the best of nutritionists. With two Nobel prizes behind him, he took a stab at medicine in the 1970s, arguing that megadoses of vitamin C worked for the common cold. While it may be good for us, and certainly most people like orange juice, but those claims about the common cold never panned out. In fact, we’re no closer to curing it now than we were then.

Just because something seems promising in early studies doesn’t mean it will pan out. It might, but this doesn’t mean the “truth” is being maliciously hidden by an evil cartel. It just means we have (as always) more to learn.

I’ll still drink my single cup of coffee every weekday morning. I’m a creature of habit, and heaven knows I need the caffeine. If it also boosts my immune system, so much the better.

Besides, we still have that universal antimicrobial called chicken soup.
 

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

A recent article in Cell & Bioscience suggested that regular coffee consumption can reduce the risk of COVID infections.

The study does make some interesting points about the benefits of coffee’s different polyphenols and antioxidants and their effects on different COVID variants. Most of it is based on lab data, although one section, using serum from coffee versus water drinkers, did find that it was more effective at inhibiting the virions. Caffeinated versus decaffeinated didn’t matter.

I’m not saying coffee doesn’t impair the virus. The data are worth looking at. But the majority of adults in North America, Europe, and pretty much the entire planet drink coffee on a regular basis. A large number of them still caught COVID. Would they have had worse cases if they didn’t drink coffee? Maybe, maybe not.

The problem here is that, as always, preliminary data like this get pushed into mass media, making it sound like “COFFEE CURES COVID!!!” Never mind that that’s not what the article said, but it sure gets clicks and retweets and FaceBook “likes.”

Suddenly fringe groups are claiming the coffee cure was there all along, and hidden from them by the evil government-pharma-medical cartel. Others claim the research is flawed because of this or that. The signal gets drowned out by the noise.

Definitely, food can be a medicine. Look at all the benefits proven of the Mediterranean diet. Coffee may help, especially if we can identify and isolate the specific components that reduce COVID risk. But, as they always say at the end, the study is preliminary and further research is needed.

Once or twice a year, an adult with epilepsy comes in, waving a copy of the ketogenic diet around and upset that I never tried it on them — again proof of the evil government-pharma-medical cartel that I’m in league with. I calm them down and explain the diet in detail. Maybe 50% of them decide to go ahead with it. In 25 years of practice, my record for an otherwise normal adult sticking with it is 5 days.

You don’t have to go too far back to remember Linus Pauling, an absolutely brilliant scientist, but not the best of nutritionists. With two Nobel prizes behind him, he took a stab at medicine in the 1970s, arguing that megadoses of vitamin C worked for the common cold. While it may be good for us, and certainly most people like orange juice, but those claims about the common cold never panned out. In fact, we’re no closer to curing it now than we were then.

Just because something seems promising in early studies doesn’t mean it will pan out. It might, but this doesn’t mean the “truth” is being maliciously hidden by an evil cartel. It just means we have (as always) more to learn.

I’ll still drink my single cup of coffee every weekday morning. I’m a creature of habit, and heaven knows I need the caffeine. If it also boosts my immune system, so much the better.

Besides, we still have that universal antimicrobial called chicken soup.
 

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

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM) have overlapping neurologic symptoms — particularly profound fatigue. The similarity between these two conditions has led to the question of whether they are indeed distinct central nervous system (CNS) entities, or whether they exist along a spectrum and are actually two different manifestations of the same disease process.

A new study utilized a novel methodology — unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics — to investigate this question by analyzing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in a group of patients with ME/CFS and another group of patients diagnosed with both ME/CFS and FM.

Close to 2,100 proteins were identified, of which nearly 1,800 were common to both conditions.

“ME/CFS and fibromyalgia do not appear to be distinct entities, with respect to their cerebrospinal fluid proteins,” lead author Steven Schutzer, MD, professor of medicine, Rutgers New Jersey School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“Work is underway to solve the multiple mysteries of ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, and other neurologic-associated diseases,” he continued. “We have further affirmed that we have a precise objective discovery tool in our hands. Collectively studying multiple diseases brings clarity to each individual disease.”

The study was published in the December 2023 issue of Annals of Medicine.
 

Cutting-Edge Technology

“ME/CFS is characterized by disabling fatigue, and FM is an illness characterized by body-wide pain,” Dr. Schutzer said. These “medically unexplained” illnesses often coexist by current definitions, and the overlap between them has suggested that they may be part of the “same illness spectrum.”

But co-investigator Benjamin Natelson, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Pain and Fatigue Study Center, Mount Sinai, New York, and others found in previous research that there are distinct differences between the conditions, raising the possibility that there may be different pathophysiological processes.

“The physicians and scientists on our team have had longstanding interest in studying neurologic diseases with cutting-edge tools such as mass spectrometry applied to CSF,” Dr. Schutzer said. “We have had success using this message to distinguish diseases such as ME/CFS from post-treatment Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, and healthy normal people.”

Dr. Schutzer explained that Dr. Natelson had acquired CSF samples from “well-characterized [ME/CFS] patients and controls.”

Since the cause of ME/CFS is “unknown,” it seemed “ripe to investigate it further with the discovery tool of mass spectrometry” by harnessing the “most advanced equipment in the country at the pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is part of the US Department of Energy.”

Dr. Schutzer noted that it was the “merger of different clinical and laboratory expertise” that enabled them to address whether ME/CFS and FM are two distinct disease processes.

The choice of analyzing CSF is that it’s the fluid closest to the brain, he added. “A lot of people have studied ME/CFS peripherally because they don’t have access to spinal fluid or it’s easier to look peripherally in the blood, but that doesn’t mean that the blood is where the real ‘action’ is occurring.”

The researchers compared the CSF of 15 patients with ME/CFS only to 15 patients with ME/CFS+FM using mass spectrometry-based proteomics, which they had employed in previous research to see whether ME/CFS was distinct from persistent neurologic Lyme disease syndrome.

This technology has become the “method of choice and discovery tool to rapidly uncover protein biomarkers that can distinguish one disease from another,” the authors stated.

In particular, in unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics, the researchers do not have to know in advance what’s in a sample before studying it, Dr. Schutzer explained.
 

Shared Pathophysiology?

Both groups of patients were of similar age (41.3 ± 9.4 years and 40.1 ± 11.0 years, respectively), with no differences in gender or rates of current comorbid psychiatric diagnoses between the groups.

The researchers quantified a total of 2,083 proteins, including 1,789 that were specifically quantified in all of the CSF samples, regardless of the presence or absence of FM.

Several analyses (including an ANOVA analysis with adjusted P values, a Random Forest machine learning approach that looked at relative protein abundance changes between those with ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM, and unsupervised hierarchical clustering analyses) did not find distinguishing differences between the groups.

“The sum of these results does not support the hypothesis that ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM are distinct entities, as currently defined,” the authors stated.

They noted that both conditions are “medically unexplained,” with core symptoms of pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and cognitive difficulty. The fact that these two syndromes coexist so often has led to the assumption that the “similarities between them outweigh the differences,” they wrote.

They pointed to some differences between the conditions, including an increase in substance P in the CSF of FM patients, but not in ME/CFS patients reported by others. There are also some immunological, physiological and genetic differences.

But if the conclusion that the two illnesses may share a similar pathophysiological basis is supported by other research that includes FM-only patients as comparators to those with ME/CFS, “this would support the notion that the two illnesses fall along a common illness spectrum and may be approached as a single entity — with implications for both diagnosis and the development of new treatment approaches,” they concluded.
 

‘Noncontributory’ Findings

Commenting on the research, Robert G. Lahita, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Autoimmune and Rheumatic Diseases, St. Joseph Health, Wayne, New Jersey, stated that he does not regard these diseases as neurologic but rather as rheumatologic.

“Most neurologists don’t see these diseases, but as a rheumatologist, I see them every day,” said Dr. Lahita, professor of medicine at Hackensack (New Jersey) Meridian School of Medicine and a clinical professor of medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, New Brunswick. “ME/CFS isn’t as common in my practice, but we do deal with many post-COVID patients who are afflicted mostly with ME/CFS.”

He noted that an important reason for fatigue in FM is that patients generally don’t sleep, or their sleep is disrupted. This is different from the cause of fatigue in ME/CFS.

In addition, the small sample size and the lack of difference between males and females were both limitations of the current study, said Dr. Lahita, who was not involved in this research. “We know that FM disproportionately affects women — in my practice, for example, over 95% of the patients with FM are female — while ME/CFS affects both genders similarly.”

Using proteomics as a biomarker was also problematic, according to Dr. Lahita. “It would have been more valuable to investigate differences in cytokines, for example,” he suggested.

Ultimately, Dr. Lahita thinks that the study is “non-contributory to the field and, as complex as the analysis was, it does nothing to shed differentiate the two conditions or explain the syndromes themselves.”

He added that it would have been more valuable to compare ME/CFS not only to ME/CFS plus FM but also with FM without ME/CFS and to healthy controls, and perhaps to a group with an autoimmune condition, such as lupus or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

Dr. Schutzer acknowledged that a limitation of the current study is that his team was unable analyze the CSF of patients with only FM. He and his colleagues “combed the world’s labs” for existing CSF samples of patients with FM alone but were unable to obtain any. “We see this study as a ‘stepping stone’ and hope that future studies will include patients with FM who are willing to donate CSF samples that we can use for comparison,” he said.

The authors received support from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Schutzer, coauthors, and Dr. Lahita reported no relevant financial relationships.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM) have overlapping neurologic symptoms — particularly profound fatigue. The similarity between these two conditions has led to the question of whether they are indeed distinct central nervous system (CNS) entities, or whether they exist along a spectrum and are actually two different manifestations of the same disease process.

A new study utilized a novel methodology — unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics — to investigate this question by analyzing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in a group of patients with ME/CFS and another group of patients diagnosed with both ME/CFS and FM.

Close to 2,100 proteins were identified, of which nearly 1,800 were common to both conditions.

“ME/CFS and fibromyalgia do not appear to be distinct entities, with respect to their cerebrospinal fluid proteins,” lead author Steven Schutzer, MD, professor of medicine, Rutgers New Jersey School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“Work is underway to solve the multiple mysteries of ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, and other neurologic-associated diseases,” he continued. “We have further affirmed that we have a precise objective discovery tool in our hands. Collectively studying multiple diseases brings clarity to each individual disease.”

The study was published in the December 2023 issue of Annals of Medicine.
 

Cutting-Edge Technology

“ME/CFS is characterized by disabling fatigue, and FM is an illness characterized by body-wide pain,” Dr. Schutzer said. These “medically unexplained” illnesses often coexist by current definitions, and the overlap between them has suggested that they may be part of the “same illness spectrum.”

But co-investigator Benjamin Natelson, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Pain and Fatigue Study Center, Mount Sinai, New York, and others found in previous research that there are distinct differences between the conditions, raising the possibility that there may be different pathophysiological processes.

“The physicians and scientists on our team have had longstanding interest in studying neurologic diseases with cutting-edge tools such as mass spectrometry applied to CSF,” Dr. Schutzer said. “We have had success using this message to distinguish diseases such as ME/CFS from post-treatment Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, and healthy normal people.”

Dr. Schutzer explained that Dr. Natelson had acquired CSF samples from “well-characterized [ME/CFS] patients and controls.”

Since the cause of ME/CFS is “unknown,” it seemed “ripe to investigate it further with the discovery tool of mass spectrometry” by harnessing the “most advanced equipment in the country at the pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is part of the US Department of Energy.”

Dr. Schutzer noted that it was the “merger of different clinical and laboratory expertise” that enabled them to address whether ME/CFS and FM are two distinct disease processes.

The choice of analyzing CSF is that it’s the fluid closest to the brain, he added. “A lot of people have studied ME/CFS peripherally because they don’t have access to spinal fluid or it’s easier to look peripherally in the blood, but that doesn’t mean that the blood is where the real ‘action’ is occurring.”

The researchers compared the CSF of 15 patients with ME/CFS only to 15 patients with ME/CFS+FM using mass spectrometry-based proteomics, which they had employed in previous research to see whether ME/CFS was distinct from persistent neurologic Lyme disease syndrome.

This technology has become the “method of choice and discovery tool to rapidly uncover protein biomarkers that can distinguish one disease from another,” the authors stated.

In particular, in unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics, the researchers do not have to know in advance what’s in a sample before studying it, Dr. Schutzer explained.
 

Shared Pathophysiology?

Both groups of patients were of similar age (41.3 ± 9.4 years and 40.1 ± 11.0 years, respectively), with no differences in gender or rates of current comorbid psychiatric diagnoses between the groups.

The researchers quantified a total of 2,083 proteins, including 1,789 that were specifically quantified in all of the CSF samples, regardless of the presence or absence of FM.

Several analyses (including an ANOVA analysis with adjusted P values, a Random Forest machine learning approach that looked at relative protein abundance changes between those with ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM, and unsupervised hierarchical clustering analyses) did not find distinguishing differences between the groups.

“The sum of these results does not support the hypothesis that ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM are distinct entities, as currently defined,” the authors stated.

They noted that both conditions are “medically unexplained,” with core symptoms of pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and cognitive difficulty. The fact that these two syndromes coexist so often has led to the assumption that the “similarities between them outweigh the differences,” they wrote.

They pointed to some differences between the conditions, including an increase in substance P in the CSF of FM patients, but not in ME/CFS patients reported by others. There are also some immunological, physiological and genetic differences.

But if the conclusion that the two illnesses may share a similar pathophysiological basis is supported by other research that includes FM-only patients as comparators to those with ME/CFS, “this would support the notion that the two illnesses fall along a common illness spectrum and may be approached as a single entity — with implications for both diagnosis and the development of new treatment approaches,” they concluded.
 

‘Noncontributory’ Findings

Commenting on the research, Robert G. Lahita, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Autoimmune and Rheumatic Diseases, St. Joseph Health, Wayne, New Jersey, stated that he does not regard these diseases as neurologic but rather as rheumatologic.

“Most neurologists don’t see these diseases, but as a rheumatologist, I see them every day,” said Dr. Lahita, professor of medicine at Hackensack (New Jersey) Meridian School of Medicine and a clinical professor of medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, New Brunswick. “ME/CFS isn’t as common in my practice, but we do deal with many post-COVID patients who are afflicted mostly with ME/CFS.”

He noted that an important reason for fatigue in FM is that patients generally don’t sleep, or their sleep is disrupted. This is different from the cause of fatigue in ME/CFS.

In addition, the small sample size and the lack of difference between males and females were both limitations of the current study, said Dr. Lahita, who was not involved in this research. “We know that FM disproportionately affects women — in my practice, for example, over 95% of the patients with FM are female — while ME/CFS affects both genders similarly.”

Using proteomics as a biomarker was also problematic, according to Dr. Lahita. “It would have been more valuable to investigate differences in cytokines, for example,” he suggested.

Ultimately, Dr. Lahita thinks that the study is “non-contributory to the field and, as complex as the analysis was, it does nothing to shed differentiate the two conditions or explain the syndromes themselves.”

He added that it would have been more valuable to compare ME/CFS not only to ME/CFS plus FM but also with FM without ME/CFS and to healthy controls, and perhaps to a group with an autoimmune condition, such as lupus or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

Dr. Schutzer acknowledged that a limitation of the current study is that his team was unable analyze the CSF of patients with only FM. He and his colleagues “combed the world’s labs” for existing CSF samples of patients with FM alone but were unable to obtain any. “We see this study as a ‘stepping stone’ and hope that future studies will include patients with FM who are willing to donate CSF samples that we can use for comparison,” he said.

The authors received support from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Schutzer, coauthors, and Dr. Lahita reported no relevant financial relationships.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM) have overlapping neurologic symptoms — particularly profound fatigue. The similarity between these two conditions has led to the question of whether they are indeed distinct central nervous system (CNS) entities, or whether they exist along a spectrum and are actually two different manifestations of the same disease process.

A new study utilized a novel methodology — unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics — to investigate this question by analyzing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in a group of patients with ME/CFS and another group of patients diagnosed with both ME/CFS and FM.

Close to 2,100 proteins were identified, of which nearly 1,800 were common to both conditions.

“ME/CFS and fibromyalgia do not appear to be distinct entities, with respect to their cerebrospinal fluid proteins,” lead author Steven Schutzer, MD, professor of medicine, Rutgers New Jersey School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“Work is underway to solve the multiple mysteries of ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, and other neurologic-associated diseases,” he continued. “We have further affirmed that we have a precise objective discovery tool in our hands. Collectively studying multiple diseases brings clarity to each individual disease.”

The study was published in the December 2023 issue of Annals of Medicine.
 

Cutting-Edge Technology

“ME/CFS is characterized by disabling fatigue, and FM is an illness characterized by body-wide pain,” Dr. Schutzer said. These “medically unexplained” illnesses often coexist by current definitions, and the overlap between them has suggested that they may be part of the “same illness spectrum.”

But co-investigator Benjamin Natelson, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Pain and Fatigue Study Center, Mount Sinai, New York, and others found in previous research that there are distinct differences between the conditions, raising the possibility that there may be different pathophysiological processes.

“The physicians and scientists on our team have had longstanding interest in studying neurologic diseases with cutting-edge tools such as mass spectrometry applied to CSF,” Dr. Schutzer said. “We have had success using this message to distinguish diseases such as ME/CFS from post-treatment Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, and healthy normal people.”

Dr. Schutzer explained that Dr. Natelson had acquired CSF samples from “well-characterized [ME/CFS] patients and controls.”

Since the cause of ME/CFS is “unknown,” it seemed “ripe to investigate it further with the discovery tool of mass spectrometry” by harnessing the “most advanced equipment in the country at the pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is part of the US Department of Energy.”

Dr. Schutzer noted that it was the “merger of different clinical and laboratory expertise” that enabled them to address whether ME/CFS and FM are two distinct disease processes.

The choice of analyzing CSF is that it’s the fluid closest to the brain, he added. “A lot of people have studied ME/CFS peripherally because they don’t have access to spinal fluid or it’s easier to look peripherally in the blood, but that doesn’t mean that the blood is where the real ‘action’ is occurring.”

The researchers compared the CSF of 15 patients with ME/CFS only to 15 patients with ME/CFS+FM using mass spectrometry-based proteomics, which they had employed in previous research to see whether ME/CFS was distinct from persistent neurologic Lyme disease syndrome.

This technology has become the “method of choice and discovery tool to rapidly uncover protein biomarkers that can distinguish one disease from another,” the authors stated.

In particular, in unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics, the researchers do not have to know in advance what’s in a sample before studying it, Dr. Schutzer explained.
 

Shared Pathophysiology?

Both groups of patients were of similar age (41.3 ± 9.4 years and 40.1 ± 11.0 years, respectively), with no differences in gender or rates of current comorbid psychiatric diagnoses between the groups.

The researchers quantified a total of 2,083 proteins, including 1,789 that were specifically quantified in all of the CSF samples, regardless of the presence or absence of FM.

Several analyses (including an ANOVA analysis with adjusted P values, a Random Forest machine learning approach that looked at relative protein abundance changes between those with ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM, and unsupervised hierarchical clustering analyses) did not find distinguishing differences between the groups.

“The sum of these results does not support the hypothesis that ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM are distinct entities, as currently defined,” the authors stated.

They noted that both conditions are “medically unexplained,” with core symptoms of pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and cognitive difficulty. The fact that these two syndromes coexist so often has led to the assumption that the “similarities between them outweigh the differences,” they wrote.

They pointed to some differences between the conditions, including an increase in substance P in the CSF of FM patients, but not in ME/CFS patients reported by others. There are also some immunological, physiological and genetic differences.

But if the conclusion that the two illnesses may share a similar pathophysiological basis is supported by other research that includes FM-only patients as comparators to those with ME/CFS, “this would support the notion that the two illnesses fall along a common illness spectrum and may be approached as a single entity — with implications for both diagnosis and the development of new treatment approaches,” they concluded.
 

‘Noncontributory’ Findings

Commenting on the research, Robert G. Lahita, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Autoimmune and Rheumatic Diseases, St. Joseph Health, Wayne, New Jersey, stated that he does not regard these diseases as neurologic but rather as rheumatologic.

“Most neurologists don’t see these diseases, but as a rheumatologist, I see them every day,” said Dr. Lahita, professor of medicine at Hackensack (New Jersey) Meridian School of Medicine and a clinical professor of medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, New Brunswick. “ME/CFS isn’t as common in my practice, but we do deal with many post-COVID patients who are afflicted mostly with ME/CFS.”

He noted that an important reason for fatigue in FM is that patients generally don’t sleep, or their sleep is disrupted. This is different from the cause of fatigue in ME/CFS.

In addition, the small sample size and the lack of difference between males and females were both limitations of the current study, said Dr. Lahita, who was not involved in this research. “We know that FM disproportionately affects women — in my practice, for example, over 95% of the patients with FM are female — while ME/CFS affects both genders similarly.”

Using proteomics as a biomarker was also problematic, according to Dr. Lahita. “It would have been more valuable to investigate differences in cytokines, for example,” he suggested.

Ultimately, Dr. Lahita thinks that the study is “non-contributory to the field and, as complex as the analysis was, it does nothing to shed differentiate the two conditions or explain the syndromes themselves.”

He added that it would have been more valuable to compare ME/CFS not only to ME/CFS plus FM but also with FM without ME/CFS and to healthy controls, and perhaps to a group with an autoimmune condition, such as lupus or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

Dr. Schutzer acknowledged that a limitation of the current study is that his team was unable analyze the CSF of patients with only FM. He and his colleagues “combed the world’s labs” for existing CSF samples of patients with FM alone but were unable to obtain any. “We see this study as a ‘stepping stone’ and hope that future studies will include patients with FM who are willing to donate CSF samples that we can use for comparison,” he said.

The authors received support from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Schutzer, coauthors, and Dr. Lahita reported no relevant financial relationships.

Women with autoimmune disease are more likely to have perinatal depression (PND), according to findings from a new study that also suggested the reverse relationship is true: Women with a history of PND have a higher risk of developing autoimmune disease.

The research, published online on January 9, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry, was led by Emma Bränn, PhD, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

The researchers used data from the Swedish Medical Birth Register and identified all women who had given birth in Sweden between 2001 and 2013. Out of the group of approximately 815,000 women and 1.3 million pregnancies, just more than 55,000 women had been diagnosed with depression during their pregnancy or within a year after delivery.

The researchers then compared the incidence of 41 autoimmune diseases in women who had and did not have PND. They controlled for factors including genetic makeup and childhood environment.

Results indicated that women with autoimmune disease were 30% more likely to have PND (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.35). Conversely, women with PND were 30% more likely than women with no PND to develop an autoimmune disease (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.36).

A sibling comparison helped confirm the results by controlling for some shared genetic and early life environmental factors related to the household in which sisters grew up.
 

Potential Shared Biological Mechanisms

The association was independent of psychiatric comorbidities, suggesting there may be shared biological mechanisms.

Dr. Bränn told this news organization that the research team wanted to do the study because previous research has shown involvement of the immune system in depression, with similarities in both the symptoms of immune system–activated diseases and depression and the molecular pathways activated by the immune system.

“Adding on top of the tremendous changes in the immune system that we see in the body of the woman during the perinatal period, we hypothesized that autoimmune diseases could be associated to perinatal depression,” she said. “This had also been shown in some previous literature but not to the extent as what we have investigated in this paper.”

She said their results help make a case for counseling women at several points in healthcare interactions — before and after conception and childbirth — and in rheumatology visits to inform women with autoimmune diseases who are contemplating motherhood of the association with developing PND. The results may also demonstrate a need for monitoring women in these groups for depression or autoimmune disease.

Fred Miller, MD, PhD, retired Scientist Emeritus of the Environmental Autoimmunity Group at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who was not part of the study, said the results seem plausible as they build on early work that demonstrated selected associations between autoimmune conditions and mental illness.

“These associations may be the result of shared genetic and environmental risk factors, including stress, hormonal changes, medications, and the proinflammatory states that can lead to both,” he said.

The novelty, he said, is in the relatively strong associations of PND with autoimmune disease overall and with specific autoimmune diseases.
 

Strong Link Found With Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

According to the paper, a significant positive bidirectional link was found for autoimmune thyroid disease, psoriasis, MS, ulcerative colitis, and celiac disease.

Researchers found a particularly strong association — double the risk in both directions — between PND and MS.

Dr. Miller said though it is unclear from this study why the association of PND with MS was stronger than with other autoimmune diseases, people with MS are known to be at a high risk for depression in general. That may come from greater shared genetic and environmental risk factors, he added.

Additionally, MS is one of the more common autoimmune diseases, he noted, so the population is larger for study.

He said he was surprised the researchers didn’t investigate medication use because medications used in depression have immunologic effects and medications used in autoimmune diseases could have effects on mental conditions.

The study has implications for clinicians in a wide variety of specialties, Dr. Miller noted.

“It suggests that caregivers be more alert to the signs of developing autoimmune disease in women with perinatal depression and to the signs of developing perinatal depression in those with autoimmune disease,” Dr. Miller said, “so that appropriate screening, diagnostics, and interventions may be undertaken.”

The researchers say they will continue to examine the long-term effects of depression during pregnancy and in the year after childbirth.

“Depression during this sensitive period can have serious consequences for both the mother and the baby,” Dr. Bränn said. “We hope that our results will help decision-makers to steer funding toward maternal healthcare so that more women can get help and support in time.”

The study was financed by Karolinska Institute, Forte (the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare), the Swedish Research Council, and the Icelandic Research Fund.

The researchers and Dr. Miller reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with autoimmune disease are more likely to have perinatal depression (PND), according to findings from a new study that also suggested the reverse relationship is true: Women with a history of PND have a higher risk of developing autoimmune disease.

The research, published online on January 9, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry, was led by Emma Bränn, PhD, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

The researchers used data from the Swedish Medical Birth Register and identified all women who had given birth in Sweden between 2001 and 2013. Out of the group of approximately 815,000 women and 1.3 million pregnancies, just more than 55,000 women had been diagnosed with depression during their pregnancy or within a year after delivery.

The researchers then compared the incidence of 41 autoimmune diseases in women who had and did not have PND. They controlled for factors including genetic makeup and childhood environment.

Results indicated that women with autoimmune disease were 30% more likely to have PND (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.35). Conversely, women with PND were 30% more likely than women with no PND to develop an autoimmune disease (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.36).

A sibling comparison helped confirm the results by controlling for some shared genetic and early life environmental factors related to the household in which sisters grew up.
 

Potential Shared Biological Mechanisms

The association was independent of psychiatric comorbidities, suggesting there may be shared biological mechanisms.

Dr. Bränn told this news organization that the research team wanted to do the study because previous research has shown involvement of the immune system in depression, with similarities in both the symptoms of immune system–activated diseases and depression and the molecular pathways activated by the immune system.

“Adding on top of the tremendous changes in the immune system that we see in the body of the woman during the perinatal period, we hypothesized that autoimmune diseases could be associated to perinatal depression,” she said. “This had also been shown in some previous literature but not to the extent as what we have investigated in this paper.”

She said their results help make a case for counseling women at several points in healthcare interactions — before and after conception and childbirth — and in rheumatology visits to inform women with autoimmune diseases who are contemplating motherhood of the association with developing PND. The results may also demonstrate a need for monitoring women in these groups for depression or autoimmune disease.

Fred Miller, MD, PhD, retired Scientist Emeritus of the Environmental Autoimmunity Group at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who was not part of the study, said the results seem plausible as they build on early work that demonstrated selected associations between autoimmune conditions and mental illness.

“These associations may be the result of shared genetic and environmental risk factors, including stress, hormonal changes, medications, and the proinflammatory states that can lead to both,” he said.

The novelty, he said, is in the relatively strong associations of PND with autoimmune disease overall and with specific autoimmune diseases.
 

Strong Link Found With Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

According to the paper, a significant positive bidirectional link was found for autoimmune thyroid disease, psoriasis, MS, ulcerative colitis, and celiac disease.

Researchers found a particularly strong association — double the risk in both directions — between PND and MS.

Dr. Miller said though it is unclear from this study why the association of PND with MS was stronger than with other autoimmune diseases, people with MS are known to be at a high risk for depression in general. That may come from greater shared genetic and environmental risk factors, he added.

Additionally, MS is one of the more common autoimmune diseases, he noted, so the population is larger for study.

He said he was surprised the researchers didn’t investigate medication use because medications used in depression have immunologic effects and medications used in autoimmune diseases could have effects on mental conditions.

The study has implications for clinicians in a wide variety of specialties, Dr. Miller noted.

“It suggests that caregivers be more alert to the signs of developing autoimmune disease in women with perinatal depression and to the signs of developing perinatal depression in those with autoimmune disease,” Dr. Miller said, “so that appropriate screening, diagnostics, and interventions may be undertaken.”

The researchers say they will continue to examine the long-term effects of depression during pregnancy and in the year after childbirth.

“Depression during this sensitive period can have serious consequences for both the mother and the baby,” Dr. Bränn said. “We hope that our results will help decision-makers to steer funding toward maternal healthcare so that more women can get help and support in time.”

The study was financed by Karolinska Institute, Forte (the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare), the Swedish Research Council, and the Icelandic Research Fund.

The researchers and Dr. Miller reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with autoimmune disease are more likely to have perinatal depression (PND), according to findings from a new study that also suggested the reverse relationship is true: Women with a history of PND have a higher risk of developing autoimmune disease.

The research, published online on January 9, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry, was led by Emma Bränn, PhD, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

The researchers used data from the Swedish Medical Birth Register and identified all women who had given birth in Sweden between 2001 and 2013. Out of the group of approximately 815,000 women and 1.3 million pregnancies, just more than 55,000 women had been diagnosed with depression during their pregnancy or within a year after delivery.

The researchers then compared the incidence of 41 autoimmune diseases in women who had and did not have PND. They controlled for factors including genetic makeup and childhood environment.

Results indicated that women with autoimmune disease were 30% more likely to have PND (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.35). Conversely, women with PND were 30% more likely than women with no PND to develop an autoimmune disease (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.36).

A sibling comparison helped confirm the results by controlling for some shared genetic and early life environmental factors related to the household in which sisters grew up.
 

Potential Shared Biological Mechanisms

The association was independent of psychiatric comorbidities, suggesting there may be shared biological mechanisms.

Dr. Bränn told this news organization that the research team wanted to do the study because previous research has shown involvement of the immune system in depression, with similarities in both the symptoms of immune system–activated diseases and depression and the molecular pathways activated by the immune system.

“Adding on top of the tremendous changes in the immune system that we see in the body of the woman during the perinatal period, we hypothesized that autoimmune diseases could be associated to perinatal depression,” she said. “This had also been shown in some previous literature but not to the extent as what we have investigated in this paper.”

She said their results help make a case for counseling women at several points in healthcare interactions — before and after conception and childbirth — and in rheumatology visits to inform women with autoimmune diseases who are contemplating motherhood of the association with developing PND. The results may also demonstrate a need for monitoring women in these groups for depression or autoimmune disease.

Fred Miller, MD, PhD, retired Scientist Emeritus of the Environmental Autoimmunity Group at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who was not part of the study, said the results seem plausible as they build on early work that demonstrated selected associations between autoimmune conditions and mental illness.

“These associations may be the result of shared genetic and environmental risk factors, including stress, hormonal changes, medications, and the proinflammatory states that can lead to both,” he said.

The novelty, he said, is in the relatively strong associations of PND with autoimmune disease overall and with specific autoimmune diseases.
 

Strong Link Found With Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

According to the paper, a significant positive bidirectional link was found for autoimmune thyroid disease, psoriasis, MS, ulcerative colitis, and celiac disease.

Researchers found a particularly strong association — double the risk in both directions — between PND and MS.

Dr. Miller said though it is unclear from this study why the association of PND with MS was stronger than with other autoimmune diseases, people with MS are known to be at a high risk for depression in general. That may come from greater shared genetic and environmental risk factors, he added.

Additionally, MS is one of the more common autoimmune diseases, he noted, so the population is larger for study.

He said he was surprised the researchers didn’t investigate medication use because medications used in depression have immunologic effects and medications used in autoimmune diseases could have effects on mental conditions.

The study has implications for clinicians in a wide variety of specialties, Dr. Miller noted.

“It suggests that caregivers be more alert to the signs of developing autoimmune disease in women with perinatal depression and to the signs of developing perinatal depression in those with autoimmune disease,” Dr. Miller said, “so that appropriate screening, diagnostics, and interventions may be undertaken.”

The researchers say they will continue to examine the long-term effects of depression during pregnancy and in the year after childbirth.

“Depression during this sensitive period can have serious consequences for both the mother and the baby,” Dr. Bränn said. “We hope that our results will help decision-makers to steer funding toward maternal healthcare so that more women can get help and support in time.”

The study was financed by Karolinska Institute, Forte (the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare), the Swedish Research Council, and the Icelandic Research Fund.

The researchers and Dr. Miller reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The relationship between lipid levels and the development of dementia is an evolving but confusing landscape.

“This is an incredibly complex area, and there really isn’t a clear consensus on this subject because different lipid classes reflect different things,” according to Betsy Mills, PhD, assistant director of aging and Alzheimer’s prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation.

Some studies suggest that excessive lipid levels may increase the risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Others imply that elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol or even triglycerides may offer some protection against subsequent dementia whereas higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, hitherto thought to be protective, may have a deleterious effect.

“It depends on what lipids you’re measuring, what you’re using to measure those lipids, what age the person is, and multiple other factors,” Dr. Mills told this news organization.

Teasing out the variables and potential mechanisms for the association between lipids and dementia risk necessitates understanding the role that lipids play in the healthy brain, the negative impact of brain lipid dysregulation, and the interplay between cholesterol in the central nervous system (CNS) and the cholesterol in the rest of the body.

 

Beyond Amyloid

The role of lipids in AD risk has historically been “overlooked,” says Scott Hansen, PhD, associate professor, Department of Molecular Medicine, Herbert Wertheim UF Scripps Institute for Biomedical Innovation and Technology, Florida.

“The common narrative is that amyloid is the culprit in AD and certainly that’s the case in familial AD,” he told this news organization. “It’s been assumed that because amyloid deposits are also found in the brains of people with late-onset AD — which is the vast majority of cases — amyloid is the cause, but that’s not clear at all.”

The “limited clinical success” of aducanumab, its “extremely small efficacy” — despite its obvious success in eradicating the amyloid plaques — suggests there’s “much more to the story than amyloid.”

He and a growing community of scientists recognize the role of inflammation and lipids. “The major finding of my lab is that cholesterol actually drives the synthesis of amyloid via inflammation. In other words, amyloid is downstream of cholesterol. Cholesterol drives the inflammation, and the inflammation drives amyloid,” he said.
 

‘Lipid Invasion Model’

Because the brain is an incredibly lipid-rich organ, Dr. Mills said that “any dysregulation in lipid homeostasis will impact the brain because cholesterol is needed for the myelin sheaths, cell membranes, and other functions.”

A healthy brain relies upon healthy lipid regulation, and “since the first description of AD over 100 years ago, the disease has been associated with altered lipids in the brain,” Dr. Hansen noted.

He cited the “ lipid invasion model” as a way of understanding brain lipid dysregulation. This hypothesis posits that AD is driven by external lipids that enter the brain as a result of damage to the blood-brain barrier (BBB).

“Cholesterol in the brain and cholesterol in the periphery — meaning, in the rest of the body, outside the brain — are separate,” Dr. Hansen explained. “The brain produces its own cholesterol and keeps tight control of it.”

Under normal circumstances, cholesterol from the diet doesn’t enter the brain. “Each pool of cholesterol — in the brain and in the periphery — has its own distinct regulatory mechanisms, target cells, and transport mechanisms.”

When the BBB has been compromised, it becomes permeable, allowing LDL cholesterol to enter the brain, said Dr. Hansen. Then the brain’s own lipoproteins transport the invading cholesterol, allowing it to be taken up by neurons. In turn, this causes neuronal amyloid levels to rise, ultimately leading to the creation of amyloid-b plaques. It also plays a role in tau phosphorylation. Both are key features of AD pathology.

Elevated levels of cholesterol and other lipids have been found in amyloid plaques, Dr. Hansen noted. Moreover, studies of brains of patients with AD have pointed to BBB damage.

And the risk factors for AD overlap with the risk factors for damage to the BBB (such as, aging, brain trauma, hypertension, stress, sleep deprivation, smoking, excess alcohol, obesity, diabetes, and APOE4 genotype), according to the lipid invasion model paper cited by Dr. Hansen.
 

‘Chicken and Egg’

“There is a strong link between the brain and the heart, and we know that cardiovascular risk factors have an overlap with dementia risk factors — especially vascular dementia,” said Dr. Mills. 

She explained that an atherogenic lipid profile results in narrowing of the arteries, with less blood reaching the brain. “This can lead to stress in the brain, which drives inflammation and pathology.”

But cholesterol itself plays an important role in inflammation, Dr. Hansen said. In the periphery, it is “part of an integral response to tissue damage and infection.”

In the brain, once cholesterol is synthesized by the astrocytes, it is transported to neurons via the apolipoprotein E (APOE) protein, which plays a role in brain cholesterol homeostasis, Dr. Mills explained. Those with the ε4 allele of APOE (APOE4) tend to have faultier transport and storage of lipids in the brain, relative to the other APOE variants.

It’s known that individuals with APOE4 are particularly vulnerable to late-onset AD, Dr. Hansen observed. By contrast, APOE2 has a more protective effect. “Most people have APOE3, which is ‘in between,’ ” he said.

When there is neuronal uptake of “invading cholesterol,” not only is amyloid produced but also neuroinflammatory cytokines, further driving inflammation. A vicious cycle ensues: Cholesterol induces cytokine release; and cytokine release, in turn, induces cholesterol synthesis — which “suggests an autocatalytic function of cholesterol in the escalation of inflammation,” Dr. Hansen suggested. He noted that permeability of the BBB also allows inflammatory cytokines from elsewhere in the body to invade the brain, further driving inflammation.

Dr. Mills elaborated: “We know that generally, in dementia, there appear to be some changes in cholesterol metabolism in the brain, but it’s a chicken-and-egg question. We know that as the disease progresses, neurons are dying and getting remodeled. Do these changes have to do with the degenerative process, or are the changes in the cholesterol metabolism actually driving the degenerative disease process? It’s probably a combination, but it’s unclear at this point.”
 

Lipids in Plasma vs CSF

Dr. Mills explained that HDL particles in the brain differ from those in the periphery. “In the CNS, you have ‘HDL-like particles,’ which are similar in size and composition [to HDL in the periphery] but aren’t the same particles.” The brain itself generates HDL-like lipoproteins, which are produced by astrocytes and other glial cells and found in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

Dyslipidemia in the periphery can be a marker for cardiovascular pathology. In the brain, “it can be an indication that there is active damage going on, depending on which compartment you’re looking at.”

She noted that plasma lipid levels and brain CSF lipid levels are “very different.” Research suggests that HDL in the CSF exhibits similar heterogeneity to plasma HDL, but these CSF lipoproteins present at 100-fold lower concentrations, compared to plasma HDL and have unique combinations of protein subpopulations. Lipidomics analysis studies show that these compartments “get very different readings, in terms of the predominant lipid disease state, and they are regulated differently from the way lipids in the periphery are regulated.” 

In the brain, the cholesterol “needs to get shuttled from glial cells to neurons,” so defects in the transport process can disrupt overall brain homeostasis, said Dr. Mills. But since the brain system is separate from the peripheral system, measuring plasma lipids is more likely to point to cardiovascular risks, while changes reflected in CSF lipids are “more indicative of alteration in lipid homeostasis in the brain.”
 

HDL and Triglycerides: A Complicated Story

Dr. Mills noted that HDL in the periphery is “very complicated,” and the idea that HDL, as a measure on its own, is “necessarily ‘good’ isn’t particularly informative.” Rather, HDL is “extremely heterogeneous, very diverse, has different lipid compositions, different classes, and different modifications.” For example, like oxidized LDL, oxidized HDL is also “bad,” preventing the HDL from having protective functions.

Similarly, the apolipoproteins associated with HDL can affect the function of the HDL. “Our understanding of the HDL-like particles in the CNS is limited, but we do understand the APOE4 link,” Dr. Mills said. “It seems that the HDL-like particles containing APOE2 or APOE3 are larger and are more effective at transferring the lipids and cholesterol linked to them relative to APOE4-containing particles.” 

Because HDL is more complex than simply being “good,” measuring HDL doesn’t “give you the full story,” said Dr. Mills. She speculates that this may be why there are studies suggesting that high levels of HDL might not have protective benefits and might even be detrimental. This makes it difficult to look at population studies, where the different subclasses of HDL are not necessarily captured in depth. 

Dr. Mills pointed to another confounding factor, which is that much of the risk for the development of AD appears to be related to the interaction of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides. “When you look at each of these individually, you get a lot of heterogeneity, and it’s unclear what’s driving what,” she said.

An advantage of observational studies is that they give information about which of these markers are associated with trends and disease risks in specific groups vs others. 

“For example, higher levels of triglycerides are associated with cardiovascular risk more in women, relative to men,” she said. And the triglyceride-to-HDL ratio seems “particularly robust” as a measure of cardiovascular health and risk. 

The interpretation of associations with triglycerides can be “tricky” and “confusing” because results differ so much between studies, she said. “There are differences between middle age and older age, which have to do with age-related changes in metabolism and lipid metabolism and not necessarily that the markers are indicating something different,” she said.

Some research has suggested that triglycerides may have a protective effect against dementia, noted Uma Naidoo, MD, director of nutritional and lifestyle psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, and director of nutritional psychiatry at MGH Academy.

This may be because the brain “runs mostly on energy from burning triglycerides,” suggested Dr. Naidoo, author of the books Calm Your Mind With Food and This Is Your Brain on Food.

In addition, having higher levels of triglycerides may be linked with having overall healthier behaviors, Dr. Naidoo told this news organization.

Dr. Mills said that in middle-aged individuals, high levels of LDL-C and triglycerides are “often indicative of more atherogenic particles and risk to cardiovascular health, which is a generally negative trajectory. But in older individuals, things become more complicated because there are differences in terms of clearance of some of these particles, tissue clearance and distribution, and nutrient status. So for older individuals, it seems that fluctuations in either direction—either too high or too low—tend to be more informative that some overall dysregulation is going on the system.” 

She emphasized that, in this “emerging area, looking at only one or two studies is confusing. But if you look at the spectrum of studies, you can see a pattern, which is that the regulation gets ‘off,’ as people age.”

 

The Potential Role of Statins

Dr. Mills speculated that there may be “neuroprotective benefits for some of the statins which appear to be related to cardiovascular benefits. But at this point, we don’t have any clear data whether statins actually directly impact brain cholesterol, since it’s a separate pool.”

They could help “by increasing blood flow and reducing narrowing of the arteries, but any direct impact on the brain is still under investigation.”

Dr. Hansen pointed to research suggesting statins taken at midlife appear to be cardioprotective and may be protective of brain health as well, whereas statins initiated in older age do not appear to have these benefits.

He speculated that one reason statins seem less helpful when initiated later in life is that the BBB has already been damaged by systemic inflammation in the periphery, and the neuroinflammatory process resulting in neuronal destruction is already underway. “I think statins aren’t going to fix that problem, so although lowering cholesterol can be helpful in some respects, it might be too late to affect cognition because the nerves have already died and won’t grow back.”
 

Can Dietary Approaches Help?

Dr. Naidoo said that when looking at neurologic and psychiatric disease, “it’s important to think about the ‘long game’ — how can we improve our blood and cardiovascular health earlier in life to help potentiate healthy aging?”

From a nutritional psychiatry standpoint, Dr. Naidoo focuses on nourishing the gut microbiome and decreasing inflammation. “A healthy and balanced microbiome supports cognition, while the composition of gut bacteria is actually drastically different in patients with neurological diseases, such as AD.” 

She recommends a nutrient-dense, anti-inflammatory diet including probiotic-rich foods (such as kimchi, sauerkraut, plain yogurt, and miso). Moreover, “the quality and structure of our fatty acids may be relevant as well: Increasing our intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids and avoiding processed fats like trans fats and hydrogenated oils may benefit our overall brain health.”

Dr. Naidoo recommends extra-virgin olive oil as a source of healthy fat. Its consumption is linked to lower incidence of AD by way of encouraging autophagy, which she calls “our own process of “cellular cleanup.’”

Dr. Naidoo believes that clinicians’ guidance to patients should “focus on healthy nutrition and other lifestyle practices, such as exercise, outdoor time, good sleep, and stress reduction.” 

Dr. Mills notes the importance of omega-3 fatty acids, such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) , for brain health. “DHA is a major lipid component of neuronal membranes,” she said. “Because of inefficiencies in metabolism with APOE4, people tend to metabolize more of the lipids on the membranes themselves, so they have higher lipid membrane turnover and a greater need to supplement. Supplementing particularly through diet, with foods such as fatty fish rich in omega-3, can help boost the levels to help keep neuronal membranes intact.”
 

What This Means for the Clinician

“At this point, we see all of these associations between lipids and dementia, but we haven’t worked out exactly what it means on the individual level for an individual patient,” said Dr. Mills. Certainly, the picture is complex, and the understanding is growing and shifting. “The clinical applications remain unclear.”

One potential clinical take-home is that clinicians might consider tracking lipid levels over time. “If you follow a patient and see an increase or decrease [in lipid levels], that can be informative.” Looking at ratios of lipids might be more useful than looking only at a change in a single measure. “If you see trends in a variety of measures that track with one another, it might be more of a sign that something is potentially wrong.” 

Whether the patient should first try a lifestyle intervention or might need medication is a “personalized clinical decision, depending on the individual, their risk factors, and how their levels are going,” said Dr. Mills. 

Dr. Mills, Dr. Hansen, and Dr. Naidoo declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The relationship between lipid levels and the development of dementia is an evolving but confusing landscape.

“This is an incredibly complex area, and there really isn’t a clear consensus on this subject because different lipid classes reflect different things,” according to Betsy Mills, PhD, assistant director of aging and Alzheimer’s prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation.

Some studies suggest that excessive lipid levels may increase the risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Others imply that elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol or even triglycerides may offer some protection against subsequent dementia whereas higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, hitherto thought to be protective, may have a deleterious effect.

“It depends on what lipids you’re measuring, what you’re using to measure those lipids, what age the person is, and multiple other factors,” Dr. Mills told this news organization.

Teasing out the variables and potential mechanisms for the association between lipids and dementia risk necessitates understanding the role that lipids play in the healthy brain, the negative impact of brain lipid dysregulation, and the interplay between cholesterol in the central nervous system (CNS) and the cholesterol in the rest of the body.

 

Beyond Amyloid

The role of lipids in AD risk has historically been “overlooked,” says Scott Hansen, PhD, associate professor, Department of Molecular Medicine, Herbert Wertheim UF Scripps Institute for Biomedical Innovation and Technology, Florida.

“The common narrative is that amyloid is the culprit in AD and certainly that’s the case in familial AD,” he told this news organization. “It’s been assumed that because amyloid deposits are also found in the brains of people with late-onset AD — which is the vast majority of cases — amyloid is the cause, but that’s not clear at all.”

The “limited clinical success” of aducanumab, its “extremely small efficacy” — despite its obvious success in eradicating the amyloid plaques — suggests there’s “much more to the story than amyloid.”

He and a growing community of scientists recognize the role of inflammation and lipids. “The major finding of my lab is that cholesterol actually drives the synthesis of amyloid via inflammation. In other words, amyloid is downstream of cholesterol. Cholesterol drives the inflammation, and the inflammation drives amyloid,” he said.
 

‘Lipid Invasion Model’

Because the brain is an incredibly lipid-rich organ, Dr. Mills said that “any dysregulation in lipid homeostasis will impact the brain because cholesterol is needed for the myelin sheaths, cell membranes, and other functions.”

A healthy brain relies upon healthy lipid regulation, and “since the first description of AD over 100 years ago, the disease has been associated with altered lipids in the brain,” Dr. Hansen noted.

He cited the “ lipid invasion model” as a way of understanding brain lipid dysregulation. This hypothesis posits that AD is driven by external lipids that enter the brain as a result of damage to the blood-brain barrier (BBB).

“Cholesterol in the brain and cholesterol in the periphery — meaning, in the rest of the body, outside the brain — are separate,” Dr. Hansen explained. “The brain produces its own cholesterol and keeps tight control of it.”

Under normal circumstances, cholesterol from the diet doesn’t enter the brain. “Each pool of cholesterol — in the brain and in the periphery — has its own distinct regulatory mechanisms, target cells, and transport mechanisms.”

When the BBB has been compromised, it becomes permeable, allowing LDL cholesterol to enter the brain, said Dr. Hansen. Then the brain’s own lipoproteins transport the invading cholesterol, allowing it to be taken up by neurons. In turn, this causes neuronal amyloid levels to rise, ultimately leading to the creation of amyloid-b plaques. It also plays a role in tau phosphorylation. Both are key features of AD pathology.

Elevated levels of cholesterol and other lipids have been found in amyloid plaques, Dr. Hansen noted. Moreover, studies of brains of patients with AD have pointed to BBB damage.

And the risk factors for AD overlap with the risk factors for damage to the BBB (such as, aging, brain trauma, hypertension, stress, sleep deprivation, smoking, excess alcohol, obesity, diabetes, and APOE4 genotype), according to the lipid invasion model paper cited by Dr. Hansen.
 

‘Chicken and Egg’

“There is a strong link between the brain and the heart, and we know that cardiovascular risk factors have an overlap with dementia risk factors — especially vascular dementia,” said Dr. Mills. 

She explained that an atherogenic lipid profile results in narrowing of the arteries, with less blood reaching the brain. “This can lead to stress in the brain, which drives inflammation and pathology.”

But cholesterol itself plays an important role in inflammation, Dr. Hansen said. In the periphery, it is “part of an integral response to tissue damage and infection.”

In the brain, once cholesterol is synthesized by the astrocytes, it is transported to neurons via the apolipoprotein E (APOE) protein, which plays a role in brain cholesterol homeostasis, Dr. Mills explained. Those with the ε4 allele of APOE (APOE4) tend to have faultier transport and storage of lipids in the brain, relative to the other APOE variants.

It’s known that individuals with APOE4 are particularly vulnerable to late-onset AD, Dr. Hansen observed. By contrast, APOE2 has a more protective effect. “Most people have APOE3, which is ‘in between,’ ” he said.

When there is neuronal uptake of “invading cholesterol,” not only is amyloid produced but also neuroinflammatory cytokines, further driving inflammation. A vicious cycle ensues: Cholesterol induces cytokine release; and cytokine release, in turn, induces cholesterol synthesis — which “suggests an autocatalytic function of cholesterol in the escalation of inflammation,” Dr. Hansen suggested. He noted that permeability of the BBB also allows inflammatory cytokines from elsewhere in the body to invade the brain, further driving inflammation.

Dr. Mills elaborated: “We know that generally, in dementia, there appear to be some changes in cholesterol metabolism in the brain, but it’s a chicken-and-egg question. We know that as the disease progresses, neurons are dying and getting remodeled. Do these changes have to do with the degenerative process, or are the changes in the cholesterol metabolism actually driving the degenerative disease process? It’s probably a combination, but it’s unclear at this point.”
 

Lipids in Plasma vs CSF

Dr. Mills explained that HDL particles in the brain differ from those in the periphery. “In the CNS, you have ‘HDL-like particles,’ which are similar in size and composition [to HDL in the periphery] but aren’t the same particles.” The brain itself generates HDL-like lipoproteins, which are produced by astrocytes and other glial cells and found in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

Dyslipidemia in the periphery can be a marker for cardiovascular pathology. In the brain, “it can be an indication that there is active damage going on, depending on which compartment you’re looking at.”

She noted that plasma lipid levels and brain CSF lipid levels are “very different.” Research suggests that HDL in the CSF exhibits similar heterogeneity to plasma HDL, but these CSF lipoproteins present at 100-fold lower concentrations, compared to plasma HDL and have unique combinations of protein subpopulations. Lipidomics analysis studies show that these compartments “get very different readings, in terms of the predominant lipid disease state, and they are regulated differently from the way lipids in the periphery are regulated.” 

In the brain, the cholesterol “needs to get shuttled from glial cells to neurons,” so defects in the transport process can disrupt overall brain homeostasis, said Dr. Mills. But since the brain system is separate from the peripheral system, measuring plasma lipids is more likely to point to cardiovascular risks, while changes reflected in CSF lipids are “more indicative of alteration in lipid homeostasis in the brain.”
 

HDL and Triglycerides: A Complicated Story

Dr. Mills noted that HDL in the periphery is “very complicated,” and the idea that HDL, as a measure on its own, is “necessarily ‘good’ isn’t particularly informative.” Rather, HDL is “extremely heterogeneous, very diverse, has different lipid compositions, different classes, and different modifications.” For example, like oxidized LDL, oxidized HDL is also “bad,” preventing the HDL from having protective functions.

Similarly, the apolipoproteins associated with HDL can affect the function of the HDL. “Our understanding of the HDL-like particles in the CNS is limited, but we do understand the APOE4 link,” Dr. Mills said. “It seems that the HDL-like particles containing APOE2 or APOE3 are larger and are more effective at transferring the lipids and cholesterol linked to them relative to APOE4-containing particles.” 

Because HDL is more complex than simply being “good,” measuring HDL doesn’t “give you the full story,” said Dr. Mills. She speculates that this may be why there are studies suggesting that high levels of HDL might not have protective benefits and might even be detrimental. This makes it difficult to look at population studies, where the different subclasses of HDL are not necessarily captured in depth. 

Dr. Mills pointed to another confounding factor, which is that much of the risk for the development of AD appears to be related to the interaction of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides. “When you look at each of these individually, you get a lot of heterogeneity, and it’s unclear what’s driving what,” she said.

An advantage of observational studies is that they give information about which of these markers are associated with trends and disease risks in specific groups vs others. 

“For example, higher levels of triglycerides are associated with cardiovascular risk more in women, relative to men,” she said. And the triglyceride-to-HDL ratio seems “particularly robust” as a measure of cardiovascular health and risk. 

The interpretation of associations with triglycerides can be “tricky” and “confusing” because results differ so much between studies, she said. “There are differences between middle age and older age, which have to do with age-related changes in metabolism and lipid metabolism and not necessarily that the markers are indicating something different,” she said.

Some research has suggested that triglycerides may have a protective effect against dementia, noted Uma Naidoo, MD, director of nutritional and lifestyle psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, and director of nutritional psychiatry at MGH Academy.

This may be because the brain “runs mostly on energy from burning triglycerides,” suggested Dr. Naidoo, author of the books Calm Your Mind With Food and This Is Your Brain on Food.

In addition, having higher levels of triglycerides may be linked with having overall healthier behaviors, Dr. Naidoo told this news organization.

Dr. Mills said that in middle-aged individuals, high levels of LDL-C and triglycerides are “often indicative of more atherogenic particles and risk to cardiovascular health, which is a generally negative trajectory. But in older individuals, things become more complicated because there are differences in terms of clearance of some of these particles, tissue clearance and distribution, and nutrient status. So for older individuals, it seems that fluctuations in either direction—either too high or too low—tend to be more informative that some overall dysregulation is going on the system.” 

She emphasized that, in this “emerging area, looking at only one or two studies is confusing. But if you look at the spectrum of studies, you can see a pattern, which is that the regulation gets ‘off,’ as people age.”

 

The Potential Role of Statins

Dr. Mills speculated that there may be “neuroprotective benefits for some of the statins which appear to be related to cardiovascular benefits. But at this point, we don’t have any clear data whether statins actually directly impact brain cholesterol, since it’s a separate pool.”

They could help “by increasing blood flow and reducing narrowing of the arteries, but any direct impact on the brain is still under investigation.”

Dr. Hansen pointed to research suggesting statins taken at midlife appear to be cardioprotective and may be protective of brain health as well, whereas statins initiated in older age do not appear to have these benefits.

He speculated that one reason statins seem less helpful when initiated later in life is that the BBB has already been damaged by systemic inflammation in the periphery, and the neuroinflammatory process resulting in neuronal destruction is already underway. “I think statins aren’t going to fix that problem, so although lowering cholesterol can be helpful in some respects, it might be too late to affect cognition because the nerves have already died and won’t grow back.”
 

Can Dietary Approaches Help?

Dr. Naidoo said that when looking at neurologic and psychiatric disease, “it’s important to think about the ‘long game’ — how can we improve our blood and cardiovascular health earlier in life to help potentiate healthy aging?”

From a nutritional psychiatry standpoint, Dr. Naidoo focuses on nourishing the gut microbiome and decreasing inflammation. “A healthy and balanced microbiome supports cognition, while the composition of gut bacteria is actually drastically different in patients with neurological diseases, such as AD.” 

She recommends a nutrient-dense, anti-inflammatory diet including probiotic-rich foods (such as kimchi, sauerkraut, plain yogurt, and miso). Moreover, “the quality and structure of our fatty acids may be relevant as well: Increasing our intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids and avoiding processed fats like trans fats and hydrogenated oils may benefit our overall brain health.”

Dr. Naidoo recommends extra-virgin olive oil as a source of healthy fat. Its consumption is linked to lower incidence of AD by way of encouraging autophagy, which she calls “our own process of “cellular cleanup.’”

Dr. Naidoo believes that clinicians’ guidance to patients should “focus on healthy nutrition and other lifestyle practices, such as exercise, outdoor time, good sleep, and stress reduction.” 

Dr. Mills notes the importance of omega-3 fatty acids, such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) , for brain health. “DHA is a major lipid component of neuronal membranes,” she said. “Because of inefficiencies in metabolism with APOE4, people tend to metabolize more of the lipids on the membranes themselves, so they have higher lipid membrane turnover and a greater need to supplement. Supplementing particularly through diet, with foods such as fatty fish rich in omega-3, can help boost the levels to help keep neuronal membranes intact.”
 

What This Means for the Clinician

“At this point, we see all of these associations between lipids and dementia, but we haven’t worked out exactly what it means on the individual level for an individual patient,” said Dr. Mills. Certainly, the picture is complex, and the understanding is growing and shifting. “The clinical applications remain unclear.”

One potential clinical take-home is that clinicians might consider tracking lipid levels over time. “If you follow a patient and see an increase or decrease [in lipid levels], that can be informative.” Looking at ratios of lipids might be more useful than looking only at a change in a single measure. “If you see trends in a variety of measures that track with one another, it might be more of a sign that something is potentially wrong.” 

Whether the patient should first try a lifestyle intervention or might need medication is a “personalized clinical decision, depending on the individual, their risk factors, and how their levels are going,” said Dr. Mills. 

Dr. Mills, Dr. Hansen, and Dr. Naidoo declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The relationship between lipid levels and the development of dementia is an evolving but confusing landscape.

“This is an incredibly complex area, and there really isn’t a clear consensus on this subject because different lipid classes reflect different things,” according to Betsy Mills, PhD, assistant director of aging and Alzheimer’s prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation.

Some studies suggest that excessive lipid levels may increase the risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Others imply that elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol or even triglycerides may offer some protection against subsequent dementia whereas higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, hitherto thought to be protective, may have a deleterious effect.

“It depends on what lipids you’re measuring, what you’re using to measure those lipids, what age the person is, and multiple other factors,” Dr. Mills told this news organization.

Teasing out the variables and potential mechanisms for the association between lipids and dementia risk necessitates understanding the role that lipids play in the healthy brain, the negative impact of brain lipid dysregulation, and the interplay between cholesterol in the central nervous system (CNS) and the cholesterol in the rest of the body.

 

Beyond Amyloid

The role of lipids in AD risk has historically been “overlooked,” says Scott Hansen, PhD, associate professor, Department of Molecular Medicine, Herbert Wertheim UF Scripps Institute for Biomedical Innovation and Technology, Florida.

“The common narrative is that amyloid is the culprit in AD and certainly that’s the case in familial AD,” he told this news organization. “It’s been assumed that because amyloid deposits are also found in the brains of people with late-onset AD — which is the vast majority of cases — amyloid is the cause, but that’s not clear at all.”

The “limited clinical success” of aducanumab, its “extremely small efficacy” — despite its obvious success in eradicating the amyloid plaques — suggests there’s “much more to the story than amyloid.”

He and a growing community of scientists recognize the role of inflammation and lipids. “The major finding of my lab is that cholesterol actually drives the synthesis of amyloid via inflammation. In other words, amyloid is downstream of cholesterol. Cholesterol drives the inflammation, and the inflammation drives amyloid,” he said.
 

‘Lipid Invasion Model’

Because the brain is an incredibly lipid-rich organ, Dr. Mills said that “any dysregulation in lipid homeostasis will impact the brain because cholesterol is needed for the myelin sheaths, cell membranes, and other functions.”

A healthy brain relies upon healthy lipid regulation, and “since the first description of AD over 100 years ago, the disease has been associated with altered lipids in the brain,” Dr. Hansen noted.

He cited the “ lipid invasion model” as a way of understanding brain lipid dysregulation. This hypothesis posits that AD is driven by external lipids that enter the brain as a result of damage to the blood-brain barrier (BBB).

“Cholesterol in the brain and cholesterol in the periphery — meaning, in the rest of the body, outside the brain — are separate,” Dr. Hansen explained. “The brain produces its own cholesterol and keeps tight control of it.”

Under normal circumstances, cholesterol from the diet doesn’t enter the brain. “Each pool of cholesterol — in the brain and in the periphery — has its own distinct regulatory mechanisms, target cells, and transport mechanisms.”

When the BBB has been compromised, it becomes permeable, allowing LDL cholesterol to enter the brain, said Dr. Hansen. Then the brain’s own lipoproteins transport the invading cholesterol, allowing it to be taken up by neurons. In turn, this causes neuronal amyloid levels to rise, ultimately leading to the creation of amyloid-b plaques. It also plays a role in tau phosphorylation. Both are key features of AD pathology.

Elevated levels of cholesterol and other lipids have been found in amyloid plaques, Dr. Hansen noted. Moreover, studies of brains of patients with AD have pointed to BBB damage.

And the risk factors for AD overlap with the risk factors for damage to the BBB (such as, aging, brain trauma, hypertension, stress, sleep deprivation, smoking, excess alcohol, obesity, diabetes, and APOE4 genotype), according to the lipid invasion model paper cited by Dr. Hansen.
 

‘Chicken and Egg’

“There is a strong link between the brain and the heart, and we know that cardiovascular risk factors have an overlap with dementia risk factors — especially vascular dementia,” said Dr. Mills. 

She explained that an atherogenic lipid profile results in narrowing of the arteries, with less blood reaching the brain. “This can lead to stress in the brain, which drives inflammation and pathology.”

But cholesterol itself plays an important role in inflammation, Dr. Hansen said. In the periphery, it is “part of an integral response to tissue damage and infection.”

In the brain, once cholesterol is synthesized by the astrocytes, it is transported to neurons via the apolipoprotein E (APOE) protein, which plays a role in brain cholesterol homeostasis, Dr. Mills explained. Those with the ε4 allele of APOE (APOE4) tend to have faultier transport and storage of lipids in the brain, relative to the other APOE variants.

It’s known that individuals with APOE4 are particularly vulnerable to late-onset AD, Dr. Hansen observed. By contrast, APOE2 has a more protective effect. “Most people have APOE3, which is ‘in between,’ ” he said.

When there is neuronal uptake of “invading cholesterol,” not only is amyloid produced but also neuroinflammatory cytokines, further driving inflammation. A vicious cycle ensues: Cholesterol induces cytokine release; and cytokine release, in turn, induces cholesterol synthesis — which “suggests an autocatalytic function of cholesterol in the escalation of inflammation,” Dr. Hansen suggested. He noted that permeability of the BBB also allows inflammatory cytokines from elsewhere in the body to invade the brain, further driving inflammation.

Dr. Mills elaborated: “We know that generally, in dementia, there appear to be some changes in cholesterol metabolism in the brain, but it’s a chicken-and-egg question. We know that as the disease progresses, neurons are dying and getting remodeled. Do these changes have to do with the degenerative process, or are the changes in the cholesterol metabolism actually driving the degenerative disease process? It’s probably a combination, but it’s unclear at this point.”
 

Lipids in Plasma vs CSF

Dr. Mills explained that HDL particles in the brain differ from those in the periphery. “In the CNS, you have ‘HDL-like particles,’ which are similar in size and composition [to HDL in the periphery] but aren’t the same particles.” The brain itself generates HDL-like lipoproteins, which are produced by astrocytes and other glial cells and found in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

Dyslipidemia in the periphery can be a marker for cardiovascular pathology. In the brain, “it can be an indication that there is active damage going on, depending on which compartment you’re looking at.”

She noted that plasma lipid levels and brain CSF lipid levels are “very different.” Research suggests that HDL in the CSF exhibits similar heterogeneity to plasma HDL, but these CSF lipoproteins present at 100-fold lower concentrations, compared to plasma HDL and have unique combinations of protein subpopulations. Lipidomics analysis studies show that these compartments “get very different readings, in terms of the predominant lipid disease state, and they are regulated differently from the way lipids in the periphery are regulated.” 

In the brain, the cholesterol “needs to get shuttled from glial cells to neurons,” so defects in the transport process can disrupt overall brain homeostasis, said Dr. Mills. But since the brain system is separate from the peripheral system, measuring plasma lipids is more likely to point to cardiovascular risks, while changes reflected in CSF lipids are “more indicative of alteration in lipid homeostasis in the brain.”
 

HDL and Triglycerides: A Complicated Story

Dr. Mills noted that HDL in the periphery is “very complicated,” and the idea that HDL, as a measure on its own, is “necessarily ‘good’ isn’t particularly informative.” Rather, HDL is “extremely heterogeneous, very diverse, has different lipid compositions, different classes, and different modifications.” For example, like oxidized LDL, oxidized HDL is also “bad,” preventing the HDL from having protective functions.

Similarly, the apolipoproteins associated with HDL can affect the function of the HDL. “Our understanding of the HDL-like particles in the CNS is limited, but we do understand the APOE4 link,” Dr. Mills said. “It seems that the HDL-like particles containing APOE2 or APOE3 are larger and are more effective at transferring the lipids and cholesterol linked to them relative to APOE4-containing particles.” 

Because HDL is more complex than simply being “good,” measuring HDL doesn’t “give you the full story,” said Dr. Mills. She speculates that this may be why there are studies suggesting that high levels of HDL might not have protective benefits and might even be detrimental. This makes it difficult to look at population studies, where the different subclasses of HDL are not necessarily captured in depth. 

Dr. Mills pointed to another confounding factor, which is that much of the risk for the development of AD appears to be related to the interaction of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides. “When you look at each of these individually, you get a lot of heterogeneity, and it’s unclear what’s driving what,” she said.

An advantage of observational studies is that they give information about which of these markers are associated with trends and disease risks in specific groups vs others. 

“For example, higher levels of triglycerides are associated with cardiovascular risk more in women, relative to men,” she said. And the triglyceride-to-HDL ratio seems “particularly robust” as a measure of cardiovascular health and risk. 

The interpretation of associations with triglycerides can be “tricky” and “confusing” because results differ so much between studies, she said. “There are differences between middle age and older age, which have to do with age-related changes in metabolism and lipid metabolism and not necessarily that the markers are indicating something different,” she said.

Some research has suggested that triglycerides may have a protective effect against dementia, noted Uma Naidoo, MD, director of nutritional and lifestyle psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, and director of nutritional psychiatry at MGH Academy.

This may be because the brain “runs mostly on energy from burning triglycerides,” suggested Dr. Naidoo, author of the books Calm Your Mind With Food and This Is Your Brain on Food.

In addition, having higher levels of triglycerides may be linked with having overall healthier behaviors, Dr. Naidoo told this news organization.

Dr. Mills said that in middle-aged individuals, high levels of LDL-C and triglycerides are “often indicative of more atherogenic particles and risk to cardiovascular health, which is a generally negative trajectory. But in older individuals, things become more complicated because there are differences in terms of clearance of some of these particles, tissue clearance and distribution, and nutrient status. So for older individuals, it seems that fluctuations in either direction—either too high or too low—tend to be more informative that some overall dysregulation is going on the system.” 

She emphasized that, in this “emerging area, looking at only one or two studies is confusing. But if you look at the spectrum of studies, you can see a pattern, which is that the regulation gets ‘off,’ as people age.”

 

The Potential Role of Statins

Dr. Mills speculated that there may be “neuroprotective benefits for some of the statins which appear to be related to cardiovascular benefits. But at this point, we don’t have any clear data whether statins actually directly impact brain cholesterol, since it’s a separate pool.”

They could help “by increasing blood flow and reducing narrowing of the arteries, but any direct impact on the brain is still under investigation.”

Dr. Hansen pointed to research suggesting statins taken at midlife appear to be cardioprotective and may be protective of brain health as well, whereas statins initiated in older age do not appear to have these benefits.

He speculated that one reason statins seem less helpful when initiated later in life is that the BBB has already been damaged by systemic inflammation in the periphery, and the neuroinflammatory process resulting in neuronal destruction is already underway. “I think statins aren’t going to fix that problem, so although lowering cholesterol can be helpful in some respects, it might be too late to affect cognition because the nerves have already died and won’t grow back.”
 

Can Dietary Approaches Help?

Dr. Naidoo said that when looking at neurologic and psychiatric disease, “it’s important to think about the ‘long game’ — how can we improve our blood and cardiovascular health earlier in life to help potentiate healthy aging?”

From a nutritional psychiatry standpoint, Dr. Naidoo focuses on nourishing the gut microbiome and decreasing inflammation. “A healthy and balanced microbiome supports cognition, while the composition of gut bacteria is actually drastically different in patients with neurological diseases, such as AD.” 

She recommends a nutrient-dense, anti-inflammatory diet including probiotic-rich foods (such as kimchi, sauerkraut, plain yogurt, and miso). Moreover, “the quality and structure of our fatty acids may be relevant as well: Increasing our intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids and avoiding processed fats like trans fats and hydrogenated oils may benefit our overall brain health.”

Dr. Naidoo recommends extra-virgin olive oil as a source of healthy fat. Its consumption is linked to lower incidence of AD by way of encouraging autophagy, which she calls “our own process of “cellular cleanup.’”

Dr. Naidoo believes that clinicians’ guidance to patients should “focus on healthy nutrition and other lifestyle practices, such as exercise, outdoor time, good sleep, and stress reduction.” 

Dr. Mills notes the importance of omega-3 fatty acids, such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) , for brain health. “DHA is a major lipid component of neuronal membranes,” she said. “Because of inefficiencies in metabolism with APOE4, people tend to metabolize more of the lipids on the membranes themselves, so they have higher lipid membrane turnover and a greater need to supplement. Supplementing particularly through diet, with foods such as fatty fish rich in omega-3, can help boost the levels to help keep neuronal membranes intact.”
 

What This Means for the Clinician

“At this point, we see all of these associations between lipids and dementia, but we haven’t worked out exactly what it means on the individual level for an individual patient,” said Dr. Mills. Certainly, the picture is complex, and the understanding is growing and shifting. “The clinical applications remain unclear.”

One potential clinical take-home is that clinicians might consider tracking lipid levels over time. “If you follow a patient and see an increase or decrease [in lipid levels], that can be informative.” Looking at ratios of lipids might be more useful than looking only at a change in a single measure. “If you see trends in a variety of measures that track with one another, it might be more of a sign that something is potentially wrong.” 

Whether the patient should first try a lifestyle intervention or might need medication is a “personalized clinical decision, depending on the individual, their risk factors, and how their levels are going,” said Dr. Mills. 

Dr. Mills, Dr. Hansen, and Dr. Naidoo declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), a noninvasive technique that uses low-intensity electrical currents to modulate brain activity, is an effective intervention for treating chronic insomnia, especially in older people, results of a relatively large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The double-blind study included 124 adults with chronic insomnia (difficulty falling asleep or maintaining sleep and early morning awakening occurring at least three times a week over 3 or more months), mean age about 51 years, from two centers in China who were randomized to receive either tACS (active group) or sham tACS (control group).
• Patients underwent 20 40-minute sessions over 4 weeks; the tACS intervention involved positioning three electrodes on the scalp and applying a current of 15 mA at a frequency of 77.5 Hz, whereas the control group received no stimulation.
• Primary outcome measures included total score on the Chinese version of the self-report Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), sleep onset latency, total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency, sleep quality, and daily disturbances (such as fatigue and attention deficits).
• Secondary outcomes included Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and Clinical Global Impression scale (including Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness [CGI-SI], Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement [CGI-GI], and Clinical Global Impression Efficacy Index [CGI-EI]).
• As rates of chronic insomnia increase with age, researchers explored the influence of age on treatment benefits by dividing participants into two age groups (< 50 years and ≥ 50 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 120 participants who completed the trial, tACS resulted in a statistically significant decrease in insomnia severity compared with the control group (estimated advantage [number of points on PSQI scale], 2.61; 95% CI, 1.47-3.75; P < .001).
• There were also statistically significant estimated advantages of tACS for TST (−0.65; 95% CI, −1.06 to −0.24; P = .002), sleep efficiency (1.05; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P < .001), sleep quality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.29-1.34; P = .003), and daily disturbances (0.91; 95% CI, 0.58-1.25; P < .001).
• tACS exhibited significant effects on CGI-SI (0.84; 95% CI, 0.38-1.30; P < .001), CGI-GI (0.74; 95% CI, 0.42-1.06; P < .001), and CGI-EI (−0.71; 95% CI, −1.02 to −0.39; P < .001) but not on total scores of HAMD and HAMA, possibly because of the relatively low baseline levels of depression and anxiety among study subjects, said the authors.
• In the older, but not younger, group, tACS treatment had a significant benefit in sleep quality, sleep efficiency, PSQI total score, CGI-SI, CGI-GI, and CGI-EI.

IN PRACTICE:

“These significant findings contribute substantially to promoting evidence-based practices and facilitating the development of innovative treatment strategies for chronic insomnia,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Xiaolin Zhu, Beijing Huilongguan Hospital, Peking University Huilongguan Clinical Medical School, Beijing, China, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up period was limited to 8 weeks, so longer follow-up studies are needed to explore the sustained effects of tACS on chronic insomnia. Severity of chronic insomnia was limited by using the self-report PSQI, and not objective measures of insomnia such as polysomnography and wrist actigraphy. The age of study subjects ranged from 22 to only 65 years.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), a noninvasive technique that uses low-intensity electrical currents to modulate brain activity, is an effective intervention for treating chronic insomnia, especially in older people, results of a relatively large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The double-blind study included 124 adults with chronic insomnia (difficulty falling asleep or maintaining sleep and early morning awakening occurring at least three times a week over 3 or more months), mean age about 51 years, from two centers in China who were randomized to receive either tACS (active group) or sham tACS (control group).
• Patients underwent 20 40-minute sessions over 4 weeks; the tACS intervention involved positioning three electrodes on the scalp and applying a current of 15 mA at a frequency of 77.5 Hz, whereas the control group received no stimulation.
• Primary outcome measures included total score on the Chinese version of the self-report Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), sleep onset latency, total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency, sleep quality, and daily disturbances (such as fatigue and attention deficits).
• Secondary outcomes included Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and Clinical Global Impression scale (including Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness [CGI-SI], Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement [CGI-GI], and Clinical Global Impression Efficacy Index [CGI-EI]).
• As rates of chronic insomnia increase with age, researchers explored the influence of age on treatment benefits by dividing participants into two age groups (< 50 years and ≥ 50 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 120 participants who completed the trial, tACS resulted in a statistically significant decrease in insomnia severity compared with the control group (estimated advantage [number of points on PSQI scale], 2.61; 95% CI, 1.47-3.75; P < .001).
• There were also statistically significant estimated advantages of tACS for TST (−0.65; 95% CI, −1.06 to −0.24; P = .002), sleep efficiency (1.05; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P < .001), sleep quality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.29-1.34; P = .003), and daily disturbances (0.91; 95% CI, 0.58-1.25; P < .001).
• tACS exhibited significant effects on CGI-SI (0.84; 95% CI, 0.38-1.30; P < .001), CGI-GI (0.74; 95% CI, 0.42-1.06; P < .001), and CGI-EI (−0.71; 95% CI, −1.02 to −0.39; P < .001) but not on total scores of HAMD and HAMA, possibly because of the relatively low baseline levels of depression and anxiety among study subjects, said the authors.
• In the older, but not younger, group, tACS treatment had a significant benefit in sleep quality, sleep efficiency, PSQI total score, CGI-SI, CGI-GI, and CGI-EI.

IN PRACTICE:

“These significant findings contribute substantially to promoting evidence-based practices and facilitating the development of innovative treatment strategies for chronic insomnia,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Xiaolin Zhu, Beijing Huilongguan Hospital, Peking University Huilongguan Clinical Medical School, Beijing, China, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up period was limited to 8 weeks, so longer follow-up studies are needed to explore the sustained effects of tACS on chronic insomnia. Severity of chronic insomnia was limited by using the self-report PSQI, and not objective measures of insomnia such as polysomnography and wrist actigraphy. The age of study subjects ranged from 22 to only 65 years.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), a noninvasive technique that uses low-intensity electrical currents to modulate brain activity, is an effective intervention for treating chronic insomnia, especially in older people, results of a relatively large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The double-blind study included 124 adults with chronic insomnia (difficulty falling asleep or maintaining sleep and early morning awakening occurring at least three times a week over 3 or more months), mean age about 51 years, from two centers in China who were randomized to receive either tACS (active group) or sham tACS (control group).
• Patients underwent 20 40-minute sessions over 4 weeks; the tACS intervention involved positioning three electrodes on the scalp and applying a current of 15 mA at a frequency of 77.5 Hz, whereas the control group received no stimulation.
• Primary outcome measures included total score on the Chinese version of the self-report Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), sleep onset latency, total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency, sleep quality, and daily disturbances (such as fatigue and attention deficits).
• Secondary outcomes included Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and Clinical Global Impression scale (including Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness [CGI-SI], Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement [CGI-GI], and Clinical Global Impression Efficacy Index [CGI-EI]).
• As rates of chronic insomnia increase with age, researchers explored the influence of age on treatment benefits by dividing participants into two age groups (< 50 years and ≥ 50 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 120 participants who completed the trial, tACS resulted in a statistically significant decrease in insomnia severity compared with the control group (estimated advantage [number of points on PSQI scale], 2.61; 95% CI, 1.47-3.75; P < .001).
• There were also statistically significant estimated advantages of tACS for TST (−0.65; 95% CI, −1.06 to −0.24; P = .002), sleep efficiency (1.05; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P < .001), sleep quality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.29-1.34; P = .003), and daily disturbances (0.91; 95% CI, 0.58-1.25; P < .001).
• tACS exhibited significant effects on CGI-SI (0.84; 95% CI, 0.38-1.30; P < .001), CGI-GI (0.74; 95% CI, 0.42-1.06; P < .001), and CGI-EI (−0.71; 95% CI, −1.02 to −0.39; P < .001) but not on total scores of HAMD and HAMA, possibly because of the relatively low baseline levels of depression and anxiety among study subjects, said the authors.
• In the older, but not younger, group, tACS treatment had a significant benefit in sleep quality, sleep efficiency, PSQI total score, CGI-SI, CGI-GI, and CGI-EI.

IN PRACTICE:

“These significant findings contribute substantially to promoting evidence-based practices and facilitating the development of innovative treatment strategies for chronic insomnia,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Xiaolin Zhu, Beijing Huilongguan Hospital, Peking University Huilongguan Clinical Medical School, Beijing, China, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up period was limited to 8 weeks, so longer follow-up studies are needed to explore the sustained effects of tACS on chronic insomnia. Severity of chronic insomnia was limited by using the self-report PSQI, and not objective measures of insomnia such as polysomnography and wrist actigraphy. The age of study subjects ranged from 22 to only 65 years.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Making eye contact is important in human interactions. It shows attention and comprehension. It also helps us read the nuances of another’s facial expressions when interacting.

Although the idea of video phone calls isn’t new — I remember it from my childhood in “house of the future” TV shows — it certainly didn’t take off until the advent of high-speed Internet, computers, and phones with cameras. Then Facetime, Skype, Zoom, Teams, and others.

Of course, it all still took a back seat to actually seeing people and having meetings in person. Until the pandemic made that the least attractive option. Then the adoption of such things went into hyperdrive and has stayed there ever since.

And ya know, I don’t have too many complaints. Between clinical trials and legal cases, both of which involve A LOT of meetings, it’s made my life easier. I no longer have to leave the office, allow time to drive somewhere and back, fight traffic, burn gas, and find parking. I move from a patient to the meeting and back to a patient from the cozy confines of my office, all without my tea getting cold.

But you can’t really make eye contact on Zoom. Instinctively, we generally look directly at the eyes of the person we’re speaking to, but in the virtual world we really don’t do that. On their end you’re on a screen, your gaze fixed somewhere below the level of your camera.

Try talking directly to the camera on Zoom — or any video platform. It doesn’t work. You feel like Dave addressing HAL’s red light in 2001. Inevitably your eyes are drawn back to the other person’s face, which is what you’re programmed to do. If they’re speaking you look at them, even though the sound is really coming from your speakers.

Interestingly, though, it seems something is lost in there. A recent perspective noted that Zoom meetings seemed to stifle creativity and produced fewer ideas than in person.

An interesting study compared neural response signals of people seeing a presentation on Zoom versus the same talk in person. When looking at a “real” speaker, there was synchronized neural activity, a higher level of engagement, and increased activation of the dorsal-parietal cortex.

Without actual eye contact it’s harder to read subtle facial expressions. Hand gestures and other body language may be out of the camera frame, or absent altogether. The nuances of voice pitch, timbre, and tone may not be the same over the speaker.

Our brains have spent several million of years developing facial recognition and reading, knowing friend from foe, and understanding what’s meant not just in what sounds are used but how they’re conveyed.

I’m not saying we should stop using Zoom altogether — it makes meetings more convenient for most people, including myself. But we also need to keep in mind that what it doesn’t convey is as important as what it does, and that virtual is never a perfect substitute for reality.
 

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

Making eye contact is important in human interactions. It shows attention and comprehension. It also helps us read the nuances of another’s facial expressions when interacting.

Although the idea of video phone calls isn’t new — I remember it from my childhood in “house of the future” TV shows — it certainly didn’t take off until the advent of high-speed Internet, computers, and phones with cameras. Then Facetime, Skype, Zoom, Teams, and others.

Of course, it all still took a back seat to actually seeing people and having meetings in person. Until the pandemic made that the least attractive option. Then the adoption of such things went into hyperdrive and has stayed there ever since.

And ya know, I don’t have too many complaints. Between clinical trials and legal cases, both of which involve A LOT of meetings, it’s made my life easier. I no longer have to leave the office, allow time to drive somewhere and back, fight traffic, burn gas, and find parking. I move from a patient to the meeting and back to a patient from the cozy confines of my office, all without my tea getting cold.

But you can’t really make eye contact on Zoom. Instinctively, we generally look directly at the eyes of the person we’re speaking to, but in the virtual world we really don’t do that. On their end you’re on a screen, your gaze fixed somewhere below the level of your camera.

Try talking directly to the camera on Zoom — or any video platform. It doesn’t work. You feel like Dave addressing HAL’s red light in 2001. Inevitably your eyes are drawn back to the other person’s face, which is what you’re programmed to do. If they’re speaking you look at them, even though the sound is really coming from your speakers.

Interestingly, though, it seems something is lost in there. A recent perspective noted that Zoom meetings seemed to stifle creativity and produced fewer ideas than in person.

An interesting study compared neural response signals of people seeing a presentation on Zoom versus the same talk in person. When looking at a “real” speaker, there was synchronized neural activity, a higher level of engagement, and increased activation of the dorsal-parietal cortex.

Without actual eye contact it’s harder to read subtle facial expressions. Hand gestures and other body language may be out of the camera frame, or absent altogether. The nuances of voice pitch, timbre, and tone may not be the same over the speaker.

Our brains have spent several million of years developing facial recognition and reading, knowing friend from foe, and understanding what’s meant not just in what sounds are used but how they’re conveyed.

I’m not saying we should stop using Zoom altogether — it makes meetings more convenient for most people, including myself. But we also need to keep in mind that what it doesn’t convey is as important as what it does, and that virtual is never a perfect substitute for reality.
 

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

Making eye contact is important in human interactions. It shows attention and comprehension. It also helps us read the nuances of another’s facial expressions when interacting.

Although the idea of video phone calls isn’t new — I remember it from my childhood in “house of the future” TV shows — it certainly didn’t take off until the advent of high-speed Internet, computers, and phones with cameras. Then Facetime, Skype, Zoom, Teams, and others.

Of course, it all still took a back seat to actually seeing people and having meetings in person. Until the pandemic made that the least attractive option. Then the adoption of such things went into hyperdrive and has stayed there ever since.

And ya know, I don’t have too many complaints. Between clinical trials and legal cases, both of which involve A LOT of meetings, it’s made my life easier. I no longer have to leave the office, allow time to drive somewhere and back, fight traffic, burn gas, and find parking. I move from a patient to the meeting and back to a patient from the cozy confines of my office, all without my tea getting cold.

But you can’t really make eye contact on Zoom. Instinctively, we generally look directly at the eyes of the person we’re speaking to, but in the virtual world we really don’t do that. On their end you’re on a screen, your gaze fixed somewhere below the level of your camera.

Try talking directly to the camera on Zoom — or any video platform. It doesn’t work. You feel like Dave addressing HAL’s red light in 2001. Inevitably your eyes are drawn back to the other person’s face, which is what you’re programmed to do. If they’re speaking you look at them, even though the sound is really coming from your speakers.

Interestingly, though, it seems something is lost in there. A recent perspective noted that Zoom meetings seemed to stifle creativity and produced fewer ideas than in person.

An interesting study compared neural response signals of people seeing a presentation on Zoom versus the same talk in person. When looking at a “real” speaker, there was synchronized neural activity, a higher level of engagement, and increased activation of the dorsal-parietal cortex.

Without actual eye contact it’s harder to read subtle facial expressions. Hand gestures and other body language may be out of the camera frame, or absent altogether. The nuances of voice pitch, timbre, and tone may not be the same over the speaker.

Our brains have spent several million of years developing facial recognition and reading, knowing friend from foe, and understanding what’s meant not just in what sounds are used but how they’re conveyed.

I’m not saying we should stop using Zoom altogether — it makes meetings more convenient for most people, including myself. But we also need to keep in mind that what it doesn’t convey is as important as what it does, and that virtual is never a perfect substitute for reality.
 

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