Neurology Reviews

Early Monday morning was my usual start-the-week routine: Set up things at the office, update my computer, check the mail, review the week’s schedule.

I was rolling the phones when a text passed by on my screen that a friend had died.

He wasn’t a close friend, but still someone I liked and got along with on the occasional times we ran into each other. Good neurologist, all-around nice person. It was a shock. I’d just seen him a week ago when we crossed paths and briefly chatted about life, the universe, and everything, before going on with our days.

We’d trained together back in the mid-90s. He was 2 years younger than I. I was in my last year of residency when he started the program. I remember being at different gatherings back then with him and his wife, a few with his then-young son, too.

And now he’s gone.

Along with the grief, you think about your own mortality. What can I be doing to hang around longer? To be better? To enjoy whatever time that I have left?

Why a mensch like him?

These are questions we all face at different times. Questions that have no answers (or at least not easy ones). There’s a lot of “why” in the universe.

There are people out there whom you don’t see often, but still consider friends, and enjoy seeing when you encounter them. Sometimes you’re bound by a common interest, or background, or who knows what. You may not think of them much, but it’s somehow reassuring to know they’re out there. And upsetting when you suddenly realize they aren’t.

You feel awful for them and their families. You wish there was a reason, or that something, anything, good will come out of the loss. But right now you don’t see any.

Our time here is never long enough. We make the best of what we have and wish for a better tomorrow.

As Longfellow wrote, the best we can hope for is to leave “footprints on the sands of time.” In medicine, and in everyday life, we strive to do our best for ourselves and for those who need us.

I’ll miss you, friend.

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

Early Monday morning was my usual start-the-week routine: Set up things at the office, update my computer, check the mail, review the week’s schedule.

I was rolling the phones when a text passed by on my screen that a friend had died.

He wasn’t a close friend, but still someone I liked and got along with on the occasional times we ran into each other. Good neurologist, all-around nice person. It was a shock. I’d just seen him a week ago when we crossed paths and briefly chatted about life, the universe, and everything, before going on with our days.

We’d trained together back in the mid-90s. He was 2 years younger than I. I was in my last year of residency when he started the program. I remember being at different gatherings back then with him and his wife, a few with his then-young son, too.

And now he’s gone.

Along with the grief, you think about your own mortality. What can I be doing to hang around longer? To be better? To enjoy whatever time that I have left?

Why a mensch like him?

These are questions we all face at different times. Questions that have no answers (or at least not easy ones). There’s a lot of “why” in the universe.

There are people out there whom you don’t see often, but still consider friends, and enjoy seeing when you encounter them. Sometimes you’re bound by a common interest, or background, or who knows what. You may not think of them much, but it’s somehow reassuring to know they’re out there. And upsetting when you suddenly realize they aren’t.

You feel awful for them and their families. You wish there was a reason, or that something, anything, good will come out of the loss. But right now you don’t see any.

Our time here is never long enough. We make the best of what we have and wish for a better tomorrow.

As Longfellow wrote, the best we can hope for is to leave “footprints on the sands of time.” In medicine, and in everyday life, we strive to do our best for ourselves and for those who need us.

I’ll miss you, friend.

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

Early Monday morning was my usual start-the-week routine: Set up things at the office, update my computer, check the mail, review the week’s schedule.

I was rolling the phones when a text passed by on my screen that a friend had died.

He wasn’t a close friend, but still someone I liked and got along with on the occasional times we ran into each other. Good neurologist, all-around nice person. It was a shock. I’d just seen him a week ago when we crossed paths and briefly chatted about life, the universe, and everything, before going on with our days.

We’d trained together back in the mid-90s. He was 2 years younger than I. I was in my last year of residency when he started the program. I remember being at different gatherings back then with him and his wife, a few with his then-young son, too.

And now he’s gone.

Along with the grief, you think about your own mortality. What can I be doing to hang around longer? To be better? To enjoy whatever time that I have left?

Why a mensch like him?

These are questions we all face at different times. Questions that have no answers (or at least not easy ones). There’s a lot of “why” in the universe.

There are people out there whom you don’t see often, but still consider friends, and enjoy seeing when you encounter them. Sometimes you’re bound by a common interest, or background, or who knows what. You may not think of them much, but it’s somehow reassuring to know they’re out there. And upsetting when you suddenly realize they aren’t.

You feel awful for them and their families. You wish there was a reason, or that something, anything, good will come out of the loss. But right now you don’t see any.

Our time here is never long enough. We make the best of what we have and wish for a better tomorrow.

As Longfellow wrote, the best we can hope for is to leave “footprints on the sands of time.” In medicine, and in everyday life, we strive to do our best for ourselves and for those who need us.

I’ll miss you, friend.

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

Patients sometimes want to give back to their physician or hospital. In recent years, the practice of soliciting donations from these patients has grown into structured fundraising initiatives at some health care organizations. Some employers mandate clinicians solicit donations, while other doctors participate voluntarily.

But the nation’s second-largest physician group is cautioning its members not to ask their patients for donations to the clinician’s workplace.

“In recent decades, more physician practices have become part of large health systems: these arrangements can offer benefits to care but can also lead to interference in the patient-physician relationship and challenges to the physician’s ethical responsibilities to patients,” said Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Grateful patient fundraising (GPF) is largely based on models of charitable giving outside of health care and is relatively new to the industry. Simply defined, it is the solicitation of donations by doctors from current and former patients. Funds may be used for operating costs, clinical research, equipment upgrades, or facility improvements.

In a newly published position paper, the ACP, which represents roughly 161,000 physicians, is clear that clinicians should not try to convert their patients into donors.

“Physicians who directly solicit funds from their own patients do risk interfering with the physician-patient relationship, which is supposed to be based on the patient’s best interests, not the physicians’ interests,” said Stacey A. Tovino, JD, PhD, director of health care law programs at the University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Once involved in fundraising, patients may also develop an unrealistic expectation of what kind of care they should receive, according to the ACP.

Another pitfall clinicians may fall into is the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In 2013, HIPAA was expanded to allow hospital fundraisers to access privileged health information, including demographic, health insurance, treating clinician, and data on outcomes. Dr. Atiq said that, since then, electronic health records have been used as tools to aide fundraising efforts. For instance, some health care organizations have embedded a feature inside EHRs to allow physicians to flag development officers when a patient or family member might be a potential donor. 

Patients may be unaware that hospital fundraising departments have access to their electronic health records, or that they have the right to opt out of fundraising solicitations.

“Physicians should not use or reveal patient information for fundraising,” Dr. Atiq said. “Even acknowledging that a person is under one’s care can make it possible for protected health information to be revealed.”

Data-mining EHRs may be legal, Ms. Tovino said, but it hugs a fine ethical line.

“A patient may not expect that their information will be used for these purposes and may not know how to opt out of having their information used in these ways,” Ms. Tovino said.

A clinician’s employment contract, whether it be a full-time position or for specific admitting privileges, may make it hard for them to push back against expectations to ask patients for money or screen for donors. Metrics or expectations to approach potential donors create ethical snares for clinicians – and it pits them between their patient and place of employment.

“GPF does raise ethical concerns, including those surrounding confidentiality and privacy, and whether physicians are being remunerated or evaluated based on their participation,” Ms. Tovino said.

Asked how doctors can avoid being involved in GPF, Dr. Atiq referred to the ACP ethics manual, which separates clinicians from fundraising.

“Redirecting the patient to discuss donations with institutional administrators provides the appropriate venue and firewall,” he said.

An author of the ACP paper reported a paid position on the board of the Government Employees Health Association.

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

Patients sometimes want to give back to their physician or hospital. In recent years, the practice of soliciting donations from these patients has grown into structured fundraising initiatives at some health care organizations. Some employers mandate clinicians solicit donations, while other doctors participate voluntarily.

But the nation’s second-largest physician group is cautioning its members not to ask their patients for donations to the clinician’s workplace.

“In recent decades, more physician practices have become part of large health systems: these arrangements can offer benefits to care but can also lead to interference in the patient-physician relationship and challenges to the physician’s ethical responsibilities to patients,” said Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Grateful patient fundraising (GPF) is largely based on models of charitable giving outside of health care and is relatively new to the industry. Simply defined, it is the solicitation of donations by doctors from current and former patients. Funds may be used for operating costs, clinical research, equipment upgrades, or facility improvements.

In a newly published position paper, the ACP, which represents roughly 161,000 physicians, is clear that clinicians should not try to convert their patients into donors.

“Physicians who directly solicit funds from their own patients do risk interfering with the physician-patient relationship, which is supposed to be based on the patient’s best interests, not the physicians’ interests,” said Stacey A. Tovino, JD, PhD, director of health care law programs at the University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Once involved in fundraising, patients may also develop an unrealistic expectation of what kind of care they should receive, according to the ACP.

Another pitfall clinicians may fall into is the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In 2013, HIPAA was expanded to allow hospital fundraisers to access privileged health information, including demographic, health insurance, treating clinician, and data on outcomes. Dr. Atiq said that, since then, electronic health records have been used as tools to aide fundraising efforts. For instance, some health care organizations have embedded a feature inside EHRs to allow physicians to flag development officers when a patient or family member might be a potential donor. 

Patients may be unaware that hospital fundraising departments have access to their electronic health records, or that they have the right to opt out of fundraising solicitations.

“Physicians should not use or reveal patient information for fundraising,” Dr. Atiq said. “Even acknowledging that a person is under one’s care can make it possible for protected health information to be revealed.”

Data-mining EHRs may be legal, Ms. Tovino said, but it hugs a fine ethical line.

“A patient may not expect that their information will be used for these purposes and may not know how to opt out of having their information used in these ways,” Ms. Tovino said.

A clinician’s employment contract, whether it be a full-time position or for specific admitting privileges, may make it hard for them to push back against expectations to ask patients for money or screen for donors. Metrics or expectations to approach potential donors create ethical snares for clinicians – and it pits them between their patient and place of employment.

“GPF does raise ethical concerns, including those surrounding confidentiality and privacy, and whether physicians are being remunerated or evaluated based on their participation,” Ms. Tovino said.

Asked how doctors can avoid being involved in GPF, Dr. Atiq referred to the ACP ethics manual, which separates clinicians from fundraising.

“Redirecting the patient to discuss donations with institutional administrators provides the appropriate venue and firewall,” he said.

An author of the ACP paper reported a paid position on the board of the Government Employees Health Association.

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

Patients sometimes want to give back to their physician or hospital. In recent years, the practice of soliciting donations from these patients has grown into structured fundraising initiatives at some health care organizations. Some employers mandate clinicians solicit donations, while other doctors participate voluntarily.

But the nation’s second-largest physician group is cautioning its members not to ask their patients for donations to the clinician’s workplace.

“In recent decades, more physician practices have become part of large health systems: these arrangements can offer benefits to care but can also lead to interference in the patient-physician relationship and challenges to the physician’s ethical responsibilities to patients,” said Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Grateful patient fundraising (GPF) is largely based on models of charitable giving outside of health care and is relatively new to the industry. Simply defined, it is the solicitation of donations by doctors from current and former patients. Funds may be used for operating costs, clinical research, equipment upgrades, or facility improvements.

In a newly published position paper, the ACP, which represents roughly 161,000 physicians, is clear that clinicians should not try to convert their patients into donors.

“Physicians who directly solicit funds from their own patients do risk interfering with the physician-patient relationship, which is supposed to be based on the patient’s best interests, not the physicians’ interests,” said Stacey A. Tovino, JD, PhD, director of health care law programs at the University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Once involved in fundraising, patients may also develop an unrealistic expectation of what kind of care they should receive, according to the ACP.

Another pitfall clinicians may fall into is the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In 2013, HIPAA was expanded to allow hospital fundraisers to access privileged health information, including demographic, health insurance, treating clinician, and data on outcomes. Dr. Atiq said that, since then, electronic health records have been used as tools to aide fundraising efforts. For instance, some health care organizations have embedded a feature inside EHRs to allow physicians to flag development officers when a patient or family member might be a potential donor. 

Patients may be unaware that hospital fundraising departments have access to their electronic health records, or that they have the right to opt out of fundraising solicitations.

“Physicians should not use or reveal patient information for fundraising,” Dr. Atiq said. “Even acknowledging that a person is under one’s care can make it possible for protected health information to be revealed.”

Data-mining EHRs may be legal, Ms. Tovino said, but it hugs a fine ethical line.

“A patient may not expect that their information will be used for these purposes and may not know how to opt out of having their information used in these ways,” Ms. Tovino said.

A clinician’s employment contract, whether it be a full-time position or for specific admitting privileges, may make it hard for them to push back against expectations to ask patients for money or screen for donors. Metrics or expectations to approach potential donors create ethical snares for clinicians – and it pits them between their patient and place of employment.

“GPF does raise ethical concerns, including those surrounding confidentiality and privacy, and whether physicians are being remunerated or evaluated based on their participation,” Ms. Tovino said.

Asked how doctors can avoid being involved in GPF, Dr. Atiq referred to the ACP ethics manual, which separates clinicians from fundraising.

“Redirecting the patient to discuss donations with institutional administrators provides the appropriate venue and firewall,” he said.

An author of the ACP paper reported a paid position on the board of the Government Employees Health Association.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For most symptomatic patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery (MCA), adding extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass surgery to medical therapy did not reduce stroke or death in comparison with medical therapy alone in the latest randomized trial comparing the two interventions.

However, subgroup analyses suggest a potential benefit of surgery for certain patients, such as those with MCA vs. ICA occlusion, mean transit time greater than 6 seconds, or regional blood flow of 0.8 or less.

“We were disappointed by the results,” Liqun Jiao, MD, of the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Beijing, told this news organization. “We were expecting to demonstrate a benefit from EC-IC bypass surgery over medical treatment alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, per our original hypothesis.”

Although the study showed improved efficacy and safety for the surgical procedure, he said, “The progress of medical treatment is even better.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Subgroup analyses promising

Previous randomized clinical trials, including the EC/IC Bypass Study and the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS), showed no benefit in stroke prevention for patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the ICA or MCA.

However, in light of improvements over the years in surgical techniques and patient selection, the authors conducted the Carotid and Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion Surgery Study (CMOSS), a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial comparing EC-IC bypass surgery plus medical therapy, consisting of antiplatelet therapy and control of stroke risk factors, with medical therapy alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, with refined patient and operator selection.

A total of 324 patients (median age, 52.7 years; 79% men) in 13 centers in China were included; 309 patients (95%) completed the study.

The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days or ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years after randomization.

Secondary outcomes included, among others, any stroke or death within 2 years and fatal stroke within 2 years.

No significant difference was found for the primary outcome between the surgical group (8.6%) and the medical group (12.3%).

The 30-day risk of stroke or death was 6.2% in the surgery group, versus 1.8% (3/163) for the medical group. The risk of ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years was 2%, versus 10.3% – nonsignificant differences.

Furthermore, none of the prespecified secondary endpoints showed a significant difference, including any stroke or death within 2 years (9.9% vs. 15.3%; hazard ratio, 0.69) and fatal stroke within 2 years (2% vs. none).

Despite the findings, “We are encouraged by the subgroup analysis and the trend of long-term outcomes,” Dr. Jiao said. “We will continue to finish 5-10 years of follow-up to see whether the benefit of bypass surgery can be identified.”

The team has also launched the CMOSS-2 trial with a refined study design based on the results of subgroup analysis of the CMOSS study.

CMOSS-2 is recruiting patients with symptomatic chronic occlusion of the MCA and severe hemodynamic insufficiency in 13 sites in China. The primary outcome is ischemic stroke in the territory of the target artery within 24 months after randomization.
 

Can’t exclude benefit

Thomas Jeerakathil, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta and Northern Stroke Lead, Cardiovascular and Stroke Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, commented on the study for this news organization. Like the authors, he said, “I don’t consider this study to definitively exclude the benefit of EC/IC bypass. More studies are required.”

Dr. Jeerakathil would like to see a study of a higher-risk group based on both clinical and hemodynamic blood flow criteria. In the current study, he said, “The trial group overall may not have been at high enough stroke risk to justify the up-front risks of the EC-IC bypass procedure.”

In addition, “The analysis method of Cox proportional hazards regression for the primary outcome did not fit the data when the perioperative period was combined with the period beyond 30 days,” he noted. “The researchers were open about this and did pivot and included a post hoc relative risk-based analysis, but the validity of their primary analysis is questionable.”

Furthermore, the study was “somewhat underpowered with a relatively small sample size and had the potential to miss clinically significant differences between groups,” he said. “It would be good to see a longer follow-up period of at least 5 years added to this trial and used in future trials, rather than 2 years.”

“Lastly,” he said, “it’s difficult to ignore the reduction in recurrent stroke events over the 30-day to 2-year time period associated with EC-IC bypass (from 10.3% down to 2%). This reduction alone shows the procedure has some potential to prevent stroke and would argue for more trials.”

EC-IC could be considered for patients who have failed other medical therapies and have more substantial evidence of compromised blood flow to the brain than those in the CMOSS trial, he noted, as many of these patients have few other options. “In our center and many other centers, the approach to EC-IC bypass is probably much more selective than used in the trial.”

Dr. Jeerakathil concluded, “Clinicians should be cautious about offering the procedure to patients with just mildly delayed blood flow in the hemisphere affected by the occluded artery and those who have not yet failed maximal medical therapy.”

But Seemant Chaturvedi, MD, and J. Marc Simard, MD, PhD, both of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, are not as optimistic about the potential for EC-IC.

Writing in a related editorial, they conclude that the results with EC-IC bypass surgery in randomized trials “remain unimpressive. Until a better understanding of the unique hemodynamic features of the brain is achieved, it will be difficult for neurosurgeons to continue offering this procedure to patients with ICA or MCA occlusion. Intensive, multifaceted medical therapy remains the first-line treatment for [these] patients.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Dr. Jiao, Dr. Jeerakathil, Dr. Chaturvedi, and Dr. Simard reported no conflicts of interest.

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

For most symptomatic patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery (MCA), adding extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass surgery to medical therapy did not reduce stroke or death in comparison with medical therapy alone in the latest randomized trial comparing the two interventions.

However, subgroup analyses suggest a potential benefit of surgery for certain patients, such as those with MCA vs. ICA occlusion, mean transit time greater than 6 seconds, or regional blood flow of 0.8 or less.

“We were disappointed by the results,” Liqun Jiao, MD, of the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Beijing, told this news organization. “We were expecting to demonstrate a benefit from EC-IC bypass surgery over medical treatment alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, per our original hypothesis.”

Although the study showed improved efficacy and safety for the surgical procedure, he said, “The progress of medical treatment is even better.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Subgroup analyses promising

Previous randomized clinical trials, including the EC/IC Bypass Study and the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS), showed no benefit in stroke prevention for patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the ICA or MCA.

However, in light of improvements over the years in surgical techniques and patient selection, the authors conducted the Carotid and Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion Surgery Study (CMOSS), a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial comparing EC-IC bypass surgery plus medical therapy, consisting of antiplatelet therapy and control of stroke risk factors, with medical therapy alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, with refined patient and operator selection.

A total of 324 patients (median age, 52.7 years; 79% men) in 13 centers in China were included; 309 patients (95%) completed the study.

The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days or ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years after randomization.

Secondary outcomes included, among others, any stroke or death within 2 years and fatal stroke within 2 years.

No significant difference was found for the primary outcome between the surgical group (8.6%) and the medical group (12.3%).

The 30-day risk of stroke or death was 6.2% in the surgery group, versus 1.8% (3/163) for the medical group. The risk of ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years was 2%, versus 10.3% – nonsignificant differences.

Furthermore, none of the prespecified secondary endpoints showed a significant difference, including any stroke or death within 2 years (9.9% vs. 15.3%; hazard ratio, 0.69) and fatal stroke within 2 years (2% vs. none).

Despite the findings, “We are encouraged by the subgroup analysis and the trend of long-term outcomes,” Dr. Jiao said. “We will continue to finish 5-10 years of follow-up to see whether the benefit of bypass surgery can be identified.”

The team has also launched the CMOSS-2 trial with a refined study design based on the results of subgroup analysis of the CMOSS study.

CMOSS-2 is recruiting patients with symptomatic chronic occlusion of the MCA and severe hemodynamic insufficiency in 13 sites in China. The primary outcome is ischemic stroke in the territory of the target artery within 24 months after randomization.
 

Can’t exclude benefit

Thomas Jeerakathil, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta and Northern Stroke Lead, Cardiovascular and Stroke Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, commented on the study for this news organization. Like the authors, he said, “I don’t consider this study to definitively exclude the benefit of EC/IC bypass. More studies are required.”

Dr. Jeerakathil would like to see a study of a higher-risk group based on both clinical and hemodynamic blood flow criteria. In the current study, he said, “The trial group overall may not have been at high enough stroke risk to justify the up-front risks of the EC-IC bypass procedure.”

In addition, “The analysis method of Cox proportional hazards regression for the primary outcome did not fit the data when the perioperative period was combined with the period beyond 30 days,” he noted. “The researchers were open about this and did pivot and included a post hoc relative risk-based analysis, but the validity of their primary analysis is questionable.”

Furthermore, the study was “somewhat underpowered with a relatively small sample size and had the potential to miss clinically significant differences between groups,” he said. “It would be good to see a longer follow-up period of at least 5 years added to this trial and used in future trials, rather than 2 years.”

“Lastly,” he said, “it’s difficult to ignore the reduction in recurrent stroke events over the 30-day to 2-year time period associated with EC-IC bypass (from 10.3% down to 2%). This reduction alone shows the procedure has some potential to prevent stroke and would argue for more trials.”

EC-IC could be considered for patients who have failed other medical therapies and have more substantial evidence of compromised blood flow to the brain than those in the CMOSS trial, he noted, as many of these patients have few other options. “In our center and many other centers, the approach to EC-IC bypass is probably much more selective than used in the trial.”

Dr. Jeerakathil concluded, “Clinicians should be cautious about offering the procedure to patients with just mildly delayed blood flow in the hemisphere affected by the occluded artery and those who have not yet failed maximal medical therapy.”

But Seemant Chaturvedi, MD, and J. Marc Simard, MD, PhD, both of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, are not as optimistic about the potential for EC-IC.

Writing in a related editorial, they conclude that the results with EC-IC bypass surgery in randomized trials “remain unimpressive. Until a better understanding of the unique hemodynamic features of the brain is achieved, it will be difficult for neurosurgeons to continue offering this procedure to patients with ICA or MCA occlusion. Intensive, multifaceted medical therapy remains the first-line treatment for [these] patients.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Dr. Jiao, Dr. Jeerakathil, Dr. Chaturvedi, and Dr. Simard reported no conflicts of interest.

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

For most symptomatic patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery (MCA), adding extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass surgery to medical therapy did not reduce stroke or death in comparison with medical therapy alone in the latest randomized trial comparing the two interventions.

However, subgroup analyses suggest a potential benefit of surgery for certain patients, such as those with MCA vs. ICA occlusion, mean transit time greater than 6 seconds, or regional blood flow of 0.8 or less.

“We were disappointed by the results,” Liqun Jiao, MD, of the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Beijing, told this news organization. “We were expecting to demonstrate a benefit from EC-IC bypass surgery over medical treatment alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, per our original hypothesis.”

Although the study showed improved efficacy and safety for the surgical procedure, he said, “The progress of medical treatment is even better.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Subgroup analyses promising

Previous randomized clinical trials, including the EC/IC Bypass Study and the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS), showed no benefit in stroke prevention for patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the ICA or MCA.

However, in light of improvements over the years in surgical techniques and patient selection, the authors conducted the Carotid and Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion Surgery Study (CMOSS), a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial comparing EC-IC bypass surgery plus medical therapy, consisting of antiplatelet therapy and control of stroke risk factors, with medical therapy alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, with refined patient and operator selection.

A total of 324 patients (median age, 52.7 years; 79% men) in 13 centers in China were included; 309 patients (95%) completed the study.

The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days or ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years after randomization.

Secondary outcomes included, among others, any stroke or death within 2 years and fatal stroke within 2 years.

No significant difference was found for the primary outcome between the surgical group (8.6%) and the medical group (12.3%).

The 30-day risk of stroke or death was 6.2% in the surgery group, versus 1.8% (3/163) for the medical group. The risk of ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years was 2%, versus 10.3% – nonsignificant differences.

Furthermore, none of the prespecified secondary endpoints showed a significant difference, including any stroke or death within 2 years (9.9% vs. 15.3%; hazard ratio, 0.69) and fatal stroke within 2 years (2% vs. none).

Despite the findings, “We are encouraged by the subgroup analysis and the trend of long-term outcomes,” Dr. Jiao said. “We will continue to finish 5-10 years of follow-up to see whether the benefit of bypass surgery can be identified.”

The team has also launched the CMOSS-2 trial with a refined study design based on the results of subgroup analysis of the CMOSS study.

CMOSS-2 is recruiting patients with symptomatic chronic occlusion of the MCA and severe hemodynamic insufficiency in 13 sites in China. The primary outcome is ischemic stroke in the territory of the target artery within 24 months after randomization.
 

Can’t exclude benefit

Thomas Jeerakathil, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta and Northern Stroke Lead, Cardiovascular and Stroke Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, commented on the study for this news organization. Like the authors, he said, “I don’t consider this study to definitively exclude the benefit of EC/IC bypass. More studies are required.”

Dr. Jeerakathil would like to see a study of a higher-risk group based on both clinical and hemodynamic blood flow criteria. In the current study, he said, “The trial group overall may not have been at high enough stroke risk to justify the up-front risks of the EC-IC bypass procedure.”

In addition, “The analysis method of Cox proportional hazards regression for the primary outcome did not fit the data when the perioperative period was combined with the period beyond 30 days,” he noted. “The researchers were open about this and did pivot and included a post hoc relative risk-based analysis, but the validity of their primary analysis is questionable.”

Furthermore, the study was “somewhat underpowered with a relatively small sample size and had the potential to miss clinically significant differences between groups,” he said. “It would be good to see a longer follow-up period of at least 5 years added to this trial and used in future trials, rather than 2 years.”

“Lastly,” he said, “it’s difficult to ignore the reduction in recurrent stroke events over the 30-day to 2-year time period associated with EC-IC bypass (from 10.3% down to 2%). This reduction alone shows the procedure has some potential to prevent stroke and would argue for more trials.”

EC-IC could be considered for patients who have failed other medical therapies and have more substantial evidence of compromised blood flow to the brain than those in the CMOSS trial, he noted, as many of these patients have few other options. “In our center and many other centers, the approach to EC-IC bypass is probably much more selective than used in the trial.”

Dr. Jeerakathil concluded, “Clinicians should be cautious about offering the procedure to patients with just mildly delayed blood flow in the hemisphere affected by the occluded artery and those who have not yet failed maximal medical therapy.”

But Seemant Chaturvedi, MD, and J. Marc Simard, MD, PhD, both of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, are not as optimistic about the potential for EC-IC.

Writing in a related editorial, they conclude that the results with EC-IC bypass surgery in randomized trials “remain unimpressive. Until a better understanding of the unique hemodynamic features of the brain is achieved, it will be difficult for neurosurgeons to continue offering this procedure to patients with ICA or MCA occlusion. Intensive, multifaceted medical therapy remains the first-line treatment for [these] patients.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Dr. Jiao, Dr. Jeerakathil, Dr. Chaturvedi, and Dr. Simard reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) that occurs in early adulthood is associated with cognitive decline in later life, results from a study of identical twins who served in World War II show.

The research, which included almost 9,000 individuals, showed that twins who had experienced a TBI were more likely to have lower cognitive function at age 70 versus their twin who did not experience a TBI, especially if they had lost consciousness or were older than age 24 at the time of injury. In addition, their cognitive decline occurred at a more rapid rate.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in later life, but we haven’t known about TBI’s effect on cognitive decline that does not quite meet the threshold for dementia,” study investigator Marianne Chanti-Ketterl, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of dementia in later life, but we haven’t known if TBI affects cognitive function, causes cognitive decline that has not progressed to the point of severity with Alzheimer’s or dementia,” she added.

Being able to study the impact of TBI in monozygotic twins gives this study a unique strength, she noted.

“The important thing about this is that they are monozygotic twins, and we know they shared a lot of early life exposure, and almost 100% genetics,” Dr. Chanti-Ketterl said.

The study was published online in Neurology.

For the study, the investigators assessed 8,662 participants born between 1917 and 1927 who were part of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council’s Twin Registry. The registry is composed of male veterans of World War II with a history of TBI, as reported by themselves or a caregiver.

The men were followed up for many years as part of the registry, but cognitive assessment only began in the 1990s. They were followed up at four different time points, at which time the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-m), an alternative to the Mini-Mental State Examination that must be given in person, was administered.

A total of 25% of participants had experienced concussion in their lifetime. Of this cohort, there were 589 pairs of monozygotic twins who were discordant (one twin had TBI and the other had not).

Among the monozygotic twin cohort, a history of any TBI and being older than age 24 at the time of TBI were associated with lower TICS-m scores.

A twin who experienced TBI after age 24 scored 0.59 points lower on the TICS-m at age 70 than his twin with no TBI, and cognitive function declined faster, by 0.05 points per year.
 

First study of its kind

Holly Elser, MD, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist and resident physician in neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said in an interview that the study’s twin design was a definite strength.

“There are lots of papers that have remarked on the apparent association between head injury and subsequent dementia or cognitive decline, but to my knowledge, this is one of the first, if not the first, to use a twin study design, which has the unique advantage of having better control over early life and genetic factors than would ever typically be possible in a dataset of unrelated adults,” said Dr. Elser.

She added that the study findings “strengthen our understanding of the relationship between TBI and later cognitive decline, so I think there is an etiologic value to the study.”

However, Dr. Elser noted that the composition of the study population may limit the extent to which the results apply to contemporary populations.

“This was a population of White male twins born between 1917 and 1927,” she noted. “However, does the experience of people who were in the military generalize to civilian populations? Are twins representative of the general population or are they unique in terms of their risk factors?”

It is always important to emphasize inclusivity in clinical research, and in dementia research in particular, Dr. Elser added.

“There are many examples of instances where racialized and otherwise economically marginalized groups have been excluded from analysis, which is problematic because there are already economically and socially marginalized groups who disproportionately bear the brunt of dementia.

“This is not a criticism of the authors’ work, that their data didn’t include a more diverse patient base, but I think it is an important reminder that we should always interpret study findings within the limitations of the data. It’s a reminder to be thoughtful about taking explicit steps to include more diverse groups in future research,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. Dr. Chanti-Ketterl and Dr. Elser have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) that occurs in early adulthood is associated with cognitive decline in later life, results from a study of identical twins who served in World War II show.

The research, which included almost 9,000 individuals, showed that twins who had experienced a TBI were more likely to have lower cognitive function at age 70 versus their twin who did not experience a TBI, especially if they had lost consciousness or were older than age 24 at the time of injury. In addition, their cognitive decline occurred at a more rapid rate.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in later life, but we haven’t known about TBI’s effect on cognitive decline that does not quite meet the threshold for dementia,” study investigator Marianne Chanti-Ketterl, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of dementia in later life, but we haven’t known if TBI affects cognitive function, causes cognitive decline that has not progressed to the point of severity with Alzheimer’s or dementia,” she added.

Being able to study the impact of TBI in monozygotic twins gives this study a unique strength, she noted.

“The important thing about this is that they are monozygotic twins, and we know they shared a lot of early life exposure, and almost 100% genetics,” Dr. Chanti-Ketterl said.

The study was published online in Neurology.

For the study, the investigators assessed 8,662 participants born between 1917 and 1927 who were part of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council’s Twin Registry. The registry is composed of male veterans of World War II with a history of TBI, as reported by themselves or a caregiver.

The men were followed up for many years as part of the registry, but cognitive assessment only began in the 1990s. They were followed up at four different time points, at which time the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-m), an alternative to the Mini-Mental State Examination that must be given in person, was administered.

A total of 25% of participants had experienced concussion in their lifetime. Of this cohort, there were 589 pairs of monozygotic twins who were discordant (one twin had TBI and the other had not).

Among the monozygotic twin cohort, a history of any TBI and being older than age 24 at the time of TBI were associated with lower TICS-m scores.

A twin who experienced TBI after age 24 scored 0.59 points lower on the TICS-m at age 70 than his twin with no TBI, and cognitive function declined faster, by 0.05 points per year.
 

First study of its kind

Holly Elser, MD, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist and resident physician in neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said in an interview that the study’s twin design was a definite strength.

“There are lots of papers that have remarked on the apparent association between head injury and subsequent dementia or cognitive decline, but to my knowledge, this is one of the first, if not the first, to use a twin study design, which has the unique advantage of having better control over early life and genetic factors than would ever typically be possible in a dataset of unrelated adults,” said Dr. Elser.

She added that the study findings “strengthen our understanding of the relationship between TBI and later cognitive decline, so I think there is an etiologic value to the study.”

However, Dr. Elser noted that the composition of the study population may limit the extent to which the results apply to contemporary populations.

“This was a population of White male twins born between 1917 and 1927,” she noted. “However, does the experience of people who were in the military generalize to civilian populations? Are twins representative of the general population or are they unique in terms of their risk factors?”

It is always important to emphasize inclusivity in clinical research, and in dementia research in particular, Dr. Elser added.

“There are many examples of instances where racialized and otherwise economically marginalized groups have been excluded from analysis, which is problematic because there are already economically and socially marginalized groups who disproportionately bear the brunt of dementia.

“This is not a criticism of the authors’ work, that their data didn’t include a more diverse patient base, but I think it is an important reminder that we should always interpret study findings within the limitations of the data. It’s a reminder to be thoughtful about taking explicit steps to include more diverse groups in future research,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. Dr. Chanti-Ketterl and Dr. Elser have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) that occurs in early adulthood is associated with cognitive decline in later life, results from a study of identical twins who served in World War II show.

The research, which included almost 9,000 individuals, showed that twins who had experienced a TBI were more likely to have lower cognitive function at age 70 versus their twin who did not experience a TBI, especially if they had lost consciousness or were older than age 24 at the time of injury. In addition, their cognitive decline occurred at a more rapid rate.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in later life, but we haven’t known about TBI’s effect on cognitive decline that does not quite meet the threshold for dementia,” study investigator Marianne Chanti-Ketterl, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of dementia in later life, but we haven’t known if TBI affects cognitive function, causes cognitive decline that has not progressed to the point of severity with Alzheimer’s or dementia,” she added.

Being able to study the impact of TBI in monozygotic twins gives this study a unique strength, she noted.

“The important thing about this is that they are monozygotic twins, and we know they shared a lot of early life exposure, and almost 100% genetics,” Dr. Chanti-Ketterl said.

The study was published online in Neurology.

For the study, the investigators assessed 8,662 participants born between 1917 and 1927 who were part of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council’s Twin Registry. The registry is composed of male veterans of World War II with a history of TBI, as reported by themselves or a caregiver.

The men were followed up for many years as part of the registry, but cognitive assessment only began in the 1990s. They were followed up at four different time points, at which time the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-m), an alternative to the Mini-Mental State Examination that must be given in person, was administered.

A total of 25% of participants had experienced concussion in their lifetime. Of this cohort, there were 589 pairs of monozygotic twins who were discordant (one twin had TBI and the other had not).

Among the monozygotic twin cohort, a history of any TBI and being older than age 24 at the time of TBI were associated with lower TICS-m scores.

A twin who experienced TBI after age 24 scored 0.59 points lower on the TICS-m at age 70 than his twin with no TBI, and cognitive function declined faster, by 0.05 points per year.
 

First study of its kind

Holly Elser, MD, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist and resident physician in neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said in an interview that the study’s twin design was a definite strength.

“There are lots of papers that have remarked on the apparent association between head injury and subsequent dementia or cognitive decline, but to my knowledge, this is one of the first, if not the first, to use a twin study design, which has the unique advantage of having better control over early life and genetic factors than would ever typically be possible in a dataset of unrelated adults,” said Dr. Elser.

She added that the study findings “strengthen our understanding of the relationship between TBI and later cognitive decline, so I think there is an etiologic value to the study.”

However, Dr. Elser noted that the composition of the study population may limit the extent to which the results apply to contemporary populations.

“This was a population of White male twins born between 1917 and 1927,” she noted. “However, does the experience of people who were in the military generalize to civilian populations? Are twins representative of the general population or are they unique in terms of their risk factors?”

It is always important to emphasize inclusivity in clinical research, and in dementia research in particular, Dr. Elser added.

“There are many examples of instances where racialized and otherwise economically marginalized groups have been excluded from analysis, which is problematic because there are already economically and socially marginalized groups who disproportionately bear the brunt of dementia.

“This is not a criticism of the authors’ work, that their data didn’t include a more diverse patient base, but I think it is an important reminder that we should always interpret study findings within the limitations of the data. It’s a reminder to be thoughtful about taking explicit steps to include more diverse groups in future research,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. Dr. Chanti-Ketterl and Dr. Elser have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When they started the open biopsy, surgeons didn’t know what they were going to find, but they certainly didn’t expect this.

The stringlike worm was five-sixteenths of an inch long, was alive, and wiggled.

“It stunned everyone in that operating theater,” Sanjaya Senanayake, MBBS, an associate professor of infectious disease at Australian National University, Canberra, and senior author of the case report, said in an interview. “When you operate on a brain, you don’t expect to find anything alive.”

The parasitic worm was about half the width of a dime. Helminths like it can usually be seen with the naked eye but are often found in the intestines after being transmitted by soil and infecting the gastrointestinal tract. But this one made it into a woman’s brain in a first-of-its-kind case reported in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases).

“We weren’t suspecting a worm at all,” Dr. Senanayake said. “There was something abnormal there. Was it going to be granulomatous lesion? Was it going to be cancer? Who knows, but it needed to be biopsied, and a worm was the last thing at the back of anyone’s mind,” he said.
 

A year of inexplicable symptoms

The 64-year-old woman was diagnosed with pneumonia and had a high white blood cell count, low hemoglobin, high platelets, and a very high C-reactive protein of 102 mg/L.

She hadn’t fully recovered from her illness when the abdominal pain and diarrhea started. And then she had a dry cough and night sweats.

After 3 weeks of discomfort, she was admitted to the hospital. She had a history of diabetes, hypothyroidism, and depression, and doctors began looking for answers to her acute illness.

They tested for autoimmune diseases and parasitic infections and prescribed prednisolone to help ease symptoms.

But 3 weeks later, her fever and cough persisted, and she was readmitted to the hospital. Doctors ordered more tests, and her eosinophils were still high, plus there were lesions on her liver, spleen, and lungs.

But tests were negative for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial cultures. Her stools showed no evidence of parasites.

She was prescribed mycophenolate and then ivermectin in case her tests for roundworm were a false negative. Doctors suspected Strongyloides, but lesions remained on her spleen even as the liver and lung lesions improved.

Reducing the prednisolone dose affected respiratory symptoms, so by January 2022, a year after initial symptoms began, the medical team added the monoclonal antibody mepolizumab. But her symptoms worsened, and she developed forgetfulness and more depression.

After a brain MRI revealed a right frontal lobe lesion, the team recommended an open biopsy and discovered the worm. The specimen was Ophidascaris robertsi, the intestinal roundworm typically of the carpet python. Never before seen in a human, the only other animals in its life cycle are small marsupials or mammals consumed by pythons.
 

A snake’s bug

Although this is the first case of an Ophidascaris infection in a human, other cases could occur, warn the doctors in their case report.

The best guess for how the patient contracted the infection was by inadvertently consuming larval eggs on wild vegetation that she collected near her home to eat. She lived near a lake known to be home to carpet pythons, so the eggs could have been on the plants she collected or on her hands or kitchen equipment.

“If you’re foraging or using native grasses or plants in recipes, it would be a good idea to cook those instead of having a salad,” Dr. Senanayake said. “That would make the chance of getting something really rare even less likely.”

It’s unclear how or why the worm, which usually stays in the gut, made its way into the patient’s brain, but her long course of immunosuppressing drugs may have played a role, the team points out. “If the normal immune barriers are reduced, then it’s easier for the parasite to move around between organ systems,” Dr. Senanayake said.

Doctors also wondered if she may have been getting re-infected when she went home between hospital admissions. After removing the worm, she received 4 weeks of treatment with albendazole to eliminate any other possible larvae in other organs, especially since Ophidascaris larvae have been known to survive for long periods – more than 4 years in laboratory rats. “The hope is that she’s been cured of this parasitic infection,” Dr. Senanayake said.

As people around the world contend with the global COVID pandemic, they might not realize that new infections are arising around the world every year, he explained.
 

Novel parasitic infections

“The reality is that 30 new infections appeared in the last 30 years, and three-quarters of them are zoonotic, animal infections spilling over into the human world,” Dr. Senanayake said.

Though some of that number is the result of improved surveillance and diagnostics, a real increase has been occurring as human settlements continue expanding.

“This is just a reflection of how burgeoning human populations are encroaching upon animal habitats, and we’re getting more interactions between humans and wild animals, domestic animals and wild animals, and humans and natural flora, which is increasing the risk of this type of infection being recognized,” he explained.

The Ophidascaris worm found in this instance is in other snake species in different continents around the world, too. “Awareness of this case will hopefully lead to the diagnosis and treatment of other cases,” Dr. Senanayake added.

Though it’s certainly surprising to find this particular parasite in a human, finding a zoonotic organism in a person isn’t that strange, according to Janet Foley, DVM, PhD, a professor of veterinary medicine at the University of California, Davis. This is especially true if the usual host is closely related to humans, like primates, or spends a lot of time around them, like rats.

“There are still a lot of parasites and diseases out there in wildlife that haven’t been discovered, and we don’t know the risk,” said Dr. Foley. “But still, the risk would have to be low, generally, or we would see more human cases.”

In the United States, the roundworm common in raccoon feces is Baylisascaris procyonis and can be dangerous for people. “There have been deaths in people exposed to these worms, which do seem to prefer to travel to a human brain,” Dr. Foley said.

A 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report described seven U.S. cases identified between May 2013 and December 2015, including six that caused central nervous system disease. Another case report in 2018 involved a toddler who had eaten dirt and animal feces in his backyard.

And this past June, an Emerging Infectious Diseases case report described a B. procyonis infection in a 7-year-old with autism spectrum disorder and a history of pica. He had put material in his mouth from the ground near a tree where epidemiologists later found raccoon feces.

Still, Dr. Senanayake cautions against people jumping to conclusions about parasitic infections when they experience symptoms that aren’t otherwise immediately explainable.

The typical person who develops forgetfulness, depression, and a fever probably doesn’t have a worm in their brain or need an immediate MRI, he pointed out. “There may be other cases out there, but common things happen commonly, and this is likely to be rare,” Dr. Senanayake said.

This case demonstrates the challenge in picking a course of treatment when the differential diagnoses for hypereosinophilic syndromes is so broad.
 

Tricky hypereosinophilic syndromes

One of those differentials for the syndromes is parasitic infections, for which treatment would be antiparasitic agents, but another differential is an autoimmune condition that would call for immunosuppression.

“Obviously, as with this case, you don’t want to give someone immunosuppressive treatment if they’ve got a parasite, so you want to look really hard for a parasite before you start them on immunosuppressive treatment for an immunological condition,” Dr. Senanayake said.

But all the blood tests for different antibodies came back negative for parasites, “and this parasite was simply difficult to find until they pulled it from her brain,” he said.

Infectious disease physicians are always looking for the unusual and exotic, Dr. Senanayake explained. But it’s important to exclude the common, easy things first, he added. It’s after exhausting all the likely culprits that “you have to start really thinking laterally and putting resources into unusual tests.”

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

When they started the open biopsy, surgeons didn’t know what they were going to find, but they certainly didn’t expect this.

The stringlike worm was five-sixteenths of an inch long, was alive, and wiggled.

“It stunned everyone in that operating theater,” Sanjaya Senanayake, MBBS, an associate professor of infectious disease at Australian National University, Canberra, and senior author of the case report, said in an interview. “When you operate on a brain, you don’t expect to find anything alive.”

The parasitic worm was about half the width of a dime. Helminths like it can usually be seen with the naked eye but are often found in the intestines after being transmitted by soil and infecting the gastrointestinal tract. But this one made it into a woman’s brain in a first-of-its-kind case reported in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases).

“We weren’t suspecting a worm at all,” Dr. Senanayake said. “There was something abnormal there. Was it going to be granulomatous lesion? Was it going to be cancer? Who knows, but it needed to be biopsied, and a worm was the last thing at the back of anyone’s mind,” he said.
 

A year of inexplicable symptoms

The 64-year-old woman was diagnosed with pneumonia and had a high white blood cell count, low hemoglobin, high platelets, and a very high C-reactive protein of 102 mg/L.

She hadn’t fully recovered from her illness when the abdominal pain and diarrhea started. And then she had a dry cough and night sweats.

After 3 weeks of discomfort, she was admitted to the hospital. She had a history of diabetes, hypothyroidism, and depression, and doctors began looking for answers to her acute illness.

They tested for autoimmune diseases and parasitic infections and prescribed prednisolone to help ease symptoms.

But 3 weeks later, her fever and cough persisted, and she was readmitted to the hospital. Doctors ordered more tests, and her eosinophils were still high, plus there were lesions on her liver, spleen, and lungs.

But tests were negative for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial cultures. Her stools showed no evidence of parasites.

She was prescribed mycophenolate and then ivermectin in case her tests for roundworm were a false negative. Doctors suspected Strongyloides, but lesions remained on her spleen even as the liver and lung lesions improved.

Reducing the prednisolone dose affected respiratory symptoms, so by January 2022, a year after initial symptoms began, the medical team added the monoclonal antibody mepolizumab. But her symptoms worsened, and she developed forgetfulness and more depression.

After a brain MRI revealed a right frontal lobe lesion, the team recommended an open biopsy and discovered the worm. The specimen was Ophidascaris robertsi, the intestinal roundworm typically of the carpet python. Never before seen in a human, the only other animals in its life cycle are small marsupials or mammals consumed by pythons.
 

A snake’s bug

Although this is the first case of an Ophidascaris infection in a human, other cases could occur, warn the doctors in their case report.

The best guess for how the patient contracted the infection was by inadvertently consuming larval eggs on wild vegetation that she collected near her home to eat. She lived near a lake known to be home to carpet pythons, so the eggs could have been on the plants she collected or on her hands or kitchen equipment.

“If you’re foraging or using native grasses or plants in recipes, it would be a good idea to cook those instead of having a salad,” Dr. Senanayake said. “That would make the chance of getting something really rare even less likely.”

It’s unclear how or why the worm, which usually stays in the gut, made its way into the patient’s brain, but her long course of immunosuppressing drugs may have played a role, the team points out. “If the normal immune barriers are reduced, then it’s easier for the parasite to move around between organ systems,” Dr. Senanayake said.

Doctors also wondered if she may have been getting re-infected when she went home between hospital admissions. After removing the worm, she received 4 weeks of treatment with albendazole to eliminate any other possible larvae in other organs, especially since Ophidascaris larvae have been known to survive for long periods – more than 4 years in laboratory rats. “The hope is that she’s been cured of this parasitic infection,” Dr. Senanayake said.

As people around the world contend with the global COVID pandemic, they might not realize that new infections are arising around the world every year, he explained.
 

Novel parasitic infections

“The reality is that 30 new infections appeared in the last 30 years, and three-quarters of them are zoonotic, animal infections spilling over into the human world,” Dr. Senanayake said.

Though some of that number is the result of improved surveillance and diagnostics, a real increase has been occurring as human settlements continue expanding.

“This is just a reflection of how burgeoning human populations are encroaching upon animal habitats, and we’re getting more interactions between humans and wild animals, domestic animals and wild animals, and humans and natural flora, which is increasing the risk of this type of infection being recognized,” he explained.

The Ophidascaris worm found in this instance is in other snake species in different continents around the world, too. “Awareness of this case will hopefully lead to the diagnosis and treatment of other cases,” Dr. Senanayake added.

Though it’s certainly surprising to find this particular parasite in a human, finding a zoonotic organism in a person isn’t that strange, according to Janet Foley, DVM, PhD, a professor of veterinary medicine at the University of California, Davis. This is especially true if the usual host is closely related to humans, like primates, or spends a lot of time around them, like rats.

“There are still a lot of parasites and diseases out there in wildlife that haven’t been discovered, and we don’t know the risk,” said Dr. Foley. “But still, the risk would have to be low, generally, or we would see more human cases.”

In the United States, the roundworm common in raccoon feces is Baylisascaris procyonis and can be dangerous for people. “There have been deaths in people exposed to these worms, which do seem to prefer to travel to a human brain,” Dr. Foley said.

A 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report described seven U.S. cases identified between May 2013 and December 2015, including six that caused central nervous system disease. Another case report in 2018 involved a toddler who had eaten dirt and animal feces in his backyard.

And this past June, an Emerging Infectious Diseases case report described a B. procyonis infection in a 7-year-old with autism spectrum disorder and a history of pica. He had put material in his mouth from the ground near a tree where epidemiologists later found raccoon feces.

Still, Dr. Senanayake cautions against people jumping to conclusions about parasitic infections when they experience symptoms that aren’t otherwise immediately explainable.

The typical person who develops forgetfulness, depression, and a fever probably doesn’t have a worm in their brain or need an immediate MRI, he pointed out. “There may be other cases out there, but common things happen commonly, and this is likely to be rare,” Dr. Senanayake said.

This case demonstrates the challenge in picking a course of treatment when the differential diagnoses for hypereosinophilic syndromes is so broad.
 

Tricky hypereosinophilic syndromes

One of those differentials for the syndromes is parasitic infections, for which treatment would be antiparasitic agents, but another differential is an autoimmune condition that would call for immunosuppression.

“Obviously, as with this case, you don’t want to give someone immunosuppressive treatment if they’ve got a parasite, so you want to look really hard for a parasite before you start them on immunosuppressive treatment for an immunological condition,” Dr. Senanayake said.

But all the blood tests for different antibodies came back negative for parasites, “and this parasite was simply difficult to find until they pulled it from her brain,” he said.

Infectious disease physicians are always looking for the unusual and exotic, Dr. Senanayake explained. But it’s important to exclude the common, easy things first, he added. It’s after exhausting all the likely culprits that “you have to start really thinking laterally and putting resources into unusual tests.”

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

When they started the open biopsy, surgeons didn’t know what they were going to find, but they certainly didn’t expect this.

The stringlike worm was five-sixteenths of an inch long, was alive, and wiggled.

“It stunned everyone in that operating theater,” Sanjaya Senanayake, MBBS, an associate professor of infectious disease at Australian National University, Canberra, and senior author of the case report, said in an interview. “When you operate on a brain, you don’t expect to find anything alive.”

The parasitic worm was about half the width of a dime. Helminths like it can usually be seen with the naked eye but are often found in the intestines after being transmitted by soil and infecting the gastrointestinal tract. But this one made it into a woman’s brain in a first-of-its-kind case reported in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases).

“We weren’t suspecting a worm at all,” Dr. Senanayake said. “There was something abnormal there. Was it going to be granulomatous lesion? Was it going to be cancer? Who knows, but it needed to be biopsied, and a worm was the last thing at the back of anyone’s mind,” he said.
 

A year of inexplicable symptoms

The 64-year-old woman was diagnosed with pneumonia and had a high white blood cell count, low hemoglobin, high platelets, and a very high C-reactive protein of 102 mg/L.

She hadn’t fully recovered from her illness when the abdominal pain and diarrhea started. And then she had a dry cough and night sweats.

After 3 weeks of discomfort, she was admitted to the hospital. She had a history of diabetes, hypothyroidism, and depression, and doctors began looking for answers to her acute illness.

They tested for autoimmune diseases and parasitic infections and prescribed prednisolone to help ease symptoms.

But 3 weeks later, her fever and cough persisted, and she was readmitted to the hospital. Doctors ordered more tests, and her eosinophils were still high, plus there were lesions on her liver, spleen, and lungs.

But tests were negative for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial cultures. Her stools showed no evidence of parasites.

She was prescribed mycophenolate and then ivermectin in case her tests for roundworm were a false negative. Doctors suspected Strongyloides, but lesions remained on her spleen even as the liver and lung lesions improved.

Reducing the prednisolone dose affected respiratory symptoms, so by January 2022, a year after initial symptoms began, the medical team added the monoclonal antibody mepolizumab. But her symptoms worsened, and she developed forgetfulness and more depression.

After a brain MRI revealed a right frontal lobe lesion, the team recommended an open biopsy and discovered the worm. The specimen was Ophidascaris robertsi, the intestinal roundworm typically of the carpet python. Never before seen in a human, the only other animals in its life cycle are small marsupials or mammals consumed by pythons.
 

A snake’s bug

Although this is the first case of an Ophidascaris infection in a human, other cases could occur, warn the doctors in their case report.

The best guess for how the patient contracted the infection was by inadvertently consuming larval eggs on wild vegetation that she collected near her home to eat. She lived near a lake known to be home to carpet pythons, so the eggs could have been on the plants she collected or on her hands or kitchen equipment.

“If you’re foraging or using native grasses or plants in recipes, it would be a good idea to cook those instead of having a salad,” Dr. Senanayake said. “That would make the chance of getting something really rare even less likely.”

It’s unclear how or why the worm, which usually stays in the gut, made its way into the patient’s brain, but her long course of immunosuppressing drugs may have played a role, the team points out. “If the normal immune barriers are reduced, then it’s easier for the parasite to move around between organ systems,” Dr. Senanayake said.

Doctors also wondered if she may have been getting re-infected when she went home between hospital admissions. After removing the worm, she received 4 weeks of treatment with albendazole to eliminate any other possible larvae in other organs, especially since Ophidascaris larvae have been known to survive for long periods – more than 4 years in laboratory rats. “The hope is that she’s been cured of this parasitic infection,” Dr. Senanayake said.

As people around the world contend with the global COVID pandemic, they might not realize that new infections are arising around the world every year, he explained.
 

Novel parasitic infections

“The reality is that 30 new infections appeared in the last 30 years, and three-quarters of them are zoonotic, animal infections spilling over into the human world,” Dr. Senanayake said.

Though some of that number is the result of improved surveillance and diagnostics, a real increase has been occurring as human settlements continue expanding.

“This is just a reflection of how burgeoning human populations are encroaching upon animal habitats, and we’re getting more interactions between humans and wild animals, domestic animals and wild animals, and humans and natural flora, which is increasing the risk of this type of infection being recognized,” he explained.

The Ophidascaris worm found in this instance is in other snake species in different continents around the world, too. “Awareness of this case will hopefully lead to the diagnosis and treatment of other cases,” Dr. Senanayake added.

Though it’s certainly surprising to find this particular parasite in a human, finding a zoonotic organism in a person isn’t that strange, according to Janet Foley, DVM, PhD, a professor of veterinary medicine at the University of California, Davis. This is especially true if the usual host is closely related to humans, like primates, or spends a lot of time around them, like rats.

“There are still a lot of parasites and diseases out there in wildlife that haven’t been discovered, and we don’t know the risk,” said Dr. Foley. “But still, the risk would have to be low, generally, or we would see more human cases.”

In the United States, the roundworm common in raccoon feces is Baylisascaris procyonis and can be dangerous for people. “There have been deaths in people exposed to these worms, which do seem to prefer to travel to a human brain,” Dr. Foley said.

A 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report described seven U.S. cases identified between May 2013 and December 2015, including six that caused central nervous system disease. Another case report in 2018 involved a toddler who had eaten dirt and animal feces in his backyard.

And this past June, an Emerging Infectious Diseases case report described a B. procyonis infection in a 7-year-old with autism spectrum disorder and a history of pica. He had put material in his mouth from the ground near a tree where epidemiologists later found raccoon feces.

Still, Dr. Senanayake cautions against people jumping to conclusions about parasitic infections when they experience symptoms that aren’t otherwise immediately explainable.

The typical person who develops forgetfulness, depression, and a fever probably doesn’t have a worm in their brain or need an immediate MRI, he pointed out. “There may be other cases out there, but common things happen commonly, and this is likely to be rare,” Dr. Senanayake said.

This case demonstrates the challenge in picking a course of treatment when the differential diagnoses for hypereosinophilic syndromes is so broad.
 

Tricky hypereosinophilic syndromes

One of those differentials for the syndromes is parasitic infections, for which treatment would be antiparasitic agents, but another differential is an autoimmune condition that would call for immunosuppression.

“Obviously, as with this case, you don’t want to give someone immunosuppressive treatment if they’ve got a parasite, so you want to look really hard for a parasite before you start them on immunosuppressive treatment for an immunological condition,” Dr. Senanayake said.

But all the blood tests for different antibodies came back negative for parasites, “and this parasite was simply difficult to find until they pulled it from her brain,” he said.

Infectious disease physicians are always looking for the unusual and exotic, Dr. Senanayake explained. But it’s important to exclude the common, easy things first, he added. It’s after exhausting all the likely culprits that “you have to start really thinking laterally and putting resources into unusual tests.”

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

TOPLINE:

Cerebral palsy (CP) affects 1-4 per 1,000 live births in the United States. A new cohort study found children conceived during the winter and spring months appear to have a slightly higher risk for developing CP than those conceived during the summer. Fall months carried about the same or only slightly higher risk of CP than summer months.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers examined data from nearly 4.5 million live births registered in California between 2007 and 2015, exploring if the season of conception could serve as an indicator of exposure to environmental risk factors.
• For instance, infants conceived in winter months may have higher exposure to viruses like influenza. In California, agricultural pesticides are most often applied in summer months, when pregnant people would be in their first or second trimester and receive their most exposure to the fine particulates, the authors hypothesize.
• Almost 4,700 babies in the study population were diagnosed with CP. Researchers also considered the role of preterm birth as a potential mediating factor, and adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics such as maternal age, race, education, smoking during pregnancy, and body mass index.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found that children conceived in winter and spring had a 9% (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.19) to 10% (95% CI, 1.02-1.20) higher risk of developing CP than those conceived in the summer.
• Children conceived in January, February, or May carried a 15% higher risk, compared with babies conceived in July.
• The risk was more pronounced among mothers with low education levels or living in neighborhoods where residents have high rates of unemployment, single-parent households, multiunit households, and lower rates of high school graduates.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers noted that possible explanations for the seasonal link to CP risk may include the prevalence of maternal infections during pregnancy, variations in exposure to pesticides, and seasonal patterns for air pollution. “Investigating seasonal variations in disease occurrence can provide clues about etiologically relevant factors.”

SOURCE:

Lead author Haoran Zhou, MPH, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues published their findings online in JAMA Network Open. The study was partly supported by a grant from the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may not have fully captured all children with CP in the cohort due to the possibility of misclassification. The findings may not be generalizable beyond California. The overall increased risk associated with the season of conception was relatively small, suggesting family planning strategies may not need to change based on these findings. The exact mechanisms involving potential environmental factors need further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Cerebral palsy (CP) affects 1-4 per 1,000 live births in the United States. A new cohort study found children conceived during the winter and spring months appear to have a slightly higher risk for developing CP than those conceived during the summer. Fall months carried about the same or only slightly higher risk of CP than summer months.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers examined data from nearly 4.5 million live births registered in California between 2007 and 2015, exploring if the season of conception could serve as an indicator of exposure to environmental risk factors.
• For instance, infants conceived in winter months may have higher exposure to viruses like influenza. In California, agricultural pesticides are most often applied in summer months, when pregnant people would be in their first or second trimester and receive their most exposure to the fine particulates, the authors hypothesize.
• Almost 4,700 babies in the study population were diagnosed with CP. Researchers also considered the role of preterm birth as a potential mediating factor, and adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics such as maternal age, race, education, smoking during pregnancy, and body mass index.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found that children conceived in winter and spring had a 9% (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.19) to 10% (95% CI, 1.02-1.20) higher risk of developing CP than those conceived in the summer.
• Children conceived in January, February, or May carried a 15% higher risk, compared with babies conceived in July.
• The risk was more pronounced among mothers with low education levels or living in neighborhoods where residents have high rates of unemployment, single-parent households, multiunit households, and lower rates of high school graduates.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers noted that possible explanations for the seasonal link to CP risk may include the prevalence of maternal infections during pregnancy, variations in exposure to pesticides, and seasonal patterns for air pollution. “Investigating seasonal variations in disease occurrence can provide clues about etiologically relevant factors.”

SOURCE:

Lead author Haoran Zhou, MPH, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues published their findings online in JAMA Network Open. The study was partly supported by a grant from the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may not have fully captured all children with CP in the cohort due to the possibility of misclassification. The findings may not be generalizable beyond California. The overall increased risk associated with the season of conception was relatively small, suggesting family planning strategies may not need to change based on these findings. The exact mechanisms involving potential environmental factors need further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Cerebral palsy (CP) affects 1-4 per 1,000 live births in the United States. A new cohort study found children conceived during the winter and spring months appear to have a slightly higher risk for developing CP than those conceived during the summer. Fall months carried about the same or only slightly higher risk of CP than summer months.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers examined data from nearly 4.5 million live births registered in California between 2007 and 2015, exploring if the season of conception could serve as an indicator of exposure to environmental risk factors.
• For instance, infants conceived in winter months may have higher exposure to viruses like influenza. In California, agricultural pesticides are most often applied in summer months, when pregnant people would be in their first or second trimester and receive their most exposure to the fine particulates, the authors hypothesize.
• Almost 4,700 babies in the study population were diagnosed with CP. Researchers also considered the role of preterm birth as a potential mediating factor, and adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics such as maternal age, race, education, smoking during pregnancy, and body mass index.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found that children conceived in winter and spring had a 9% (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.19) to 10% (95% CI, 1.02-1.20) higher risk of developing CP than those conceived in the summer.
• Children conceived in January, February, or May carried a 15% higher risk, compared with babies conceived in July.
• The risk was more pronounced among mothers with low education levels or living in neighborhoods where residents have high rates of unemployment, single-parent households, multiunit households, and lower rates of high school graduates.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers noted that possible explanations for the seasonal link to CP risk may include the prevalence of maternal infections during pregnancy, variations in exposure to pesticides, and seasonal patterns for air pollution. “Investigating seasonal variations in disease occurrence can provide clues about etiologically relevant factors.”

SOURCE:

Lead author Haoran Zhou, MPH, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues published their findings online in JAMA Network Open. The study was partly supported by a grant from the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may not have fully captured all children with CP in the cohort due to the possibility of misclassification. The findings may not be generalizable beyond California. The overall increased risk associated with the season of conception was relatively small, suggesting family planning strategies may not need to change based on these findings. The exact mechanisms involving potential environmental factors need further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A national shortage of neurologists is creating “neurology deserts” around the country, forcing patients to wait longer and drive farther for care, news that comes as no revelation to Thomas Vidic, MD, clinical associate professor of neurology at Indiana University, South Bend.

In 2013, Dr. Vidic and other members of an American Academy of Neurology Workforce Task Force coauthored a report that predicted the demand for neurologists would outstrip supply by 2025. A decade later, it appears the situation is even more dire than anticipated.

While a nationwide physician shortage is affecting all specialties, neurology is facing a particularly difficult confluence of events. Advances in treatments for migraine, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and other neurological disorders have created a growing demand for care of pediatric and adult patients.

Over the next 7-27 years, as the number of Americans over age 65 increases, the incidences of Parkinson’s and dementia are set to double, and stroke cases are expected to rise by 20%.

At the same time, physician retirement and burnout are siphoning off neurologists from a workforce that isn’t growing fast enough. The American Medical Association reports the number of neurologists who treat patients in the United States grew by only 598 over the last decade, from 12,761 to 13,359.

This perfect storm has created what another AAN report calls a “grave threat” to patient care. The neurologist shortage “reduces access to care, worsens patient outcomes, and erodes career satisfaction and quality of life for neurologists as they face increasingly insurmountable demands,” write the authors of that 2019 report.

“We’re in trouble,” said Dr. Vidic. “We have a tremendous need for neurologists that we’re just not supporting.”
 

How did we get here?

Some of the challenges related to neurologist recruitment and retention are similar to those in other specialties. Compensation is certainly a factor, Dr. Vidic said.

Although neurologists’ incomes have increased significantly over the past decade, they still rank in the lower half of all medical specialties. In addition, only 50% of neurologists believe they are fairly compensated.

Burnout is another significant challenge. In 2019, before the pandemic, 53% of neurologists surveyed in Medscape’s National Physician Burnout, Depression, and Suicide Report indicated they were burned out. That percentage increased slightly in 2023, to 55%, with most respondents reporting a strong to severe impact on their lives.

The most common reason for burnout was administration and paperwork that cuts into neurologists’ time with patients. Charting and completing prior authorization and step therapy forms required by most insurers take an average of 17.6 hours a week for neurologists – much longer than the overall physician average and higher than almost all other specialties.

But perhaps the biggest contributor to the nationwide neurologist shortage is a 26-year cap on Medicare funding for medical residency. Enacted as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the legislation limits Medicare funding for medical residency training at 1996 levels. Most medical residencies are funded by the federal government and Medicare is the largest participating program.

As a result of the cap, the number of total residents in the United States – which grew by 20.6% between 1987 and 1997 – increased by only 8% from 1997 to 2007.

A new study on patients’ long travel times to neurology clinics, published in Neurology, is the latest to illustrate the real-world impact of too few neurologists amid growing caseloads.

Researchers found that 17% of the 563,216 Medicare beneficiaries who visited a neurologist in 2018 had to travel an average of 81 miles one way. Those long distances were endured most often by patients with brain and spinal cord cancers, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and multiple sclerosis.

While the neurologist shortage affects every state, a 2020 study suggests rural areas are most affected. This analysis of Medicare recipients showed that just 21% of rural residents with a neurological condition had access to a nearby specialist, compared with 27% of urban dwellers. The findings are similar to those of a 2017 report that identified “neurology deserts” in a number of states across the country.

Wait times for new neurology patients are reported to be among the longest of all specialties, with an average of 30 days for adult patients and 5-6 months for pediatric patients.


 

More neurology instruction needed

“It’s really hard knowing there are families out there who need the care but can’t get to it in a timely manner,” said Tyler Allison, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Working in a rural state means Dr. Allison has patients who drive 6 hours or more for an appointment. Although telemedicine has reduced the number of trips for many of his existing pediatric cases, it has had little impact on new patients. This is particularly frustrating, he said, when he sees a new patient with a condition that could have been treated by a primary care physician in their home community.

“One of the biggest problems we have in the child neurology world is that we don’t have enough primary care physicians who feel they are adequately trained to care for these patients,” said Dr. Allison, who also is the program director of the Child Neurology Residency Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City.

“Sometimes I see patients where, frankly, I only need to see them once to provide reassurance to the family and then they go back to their primary care doctor,” he said. “It’s the kind of thing that if we trained people appropriately from the beginning, it would shorten our wait list.”

Indeed, increasing neurology instruction during medical school is one recommendation offered in a 2019 report that characterized the neurologist shortage as a “grave threat.”

Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges show U.S. medical schools required an average of 4.4 weeks of neurology instruction in 2019-2020. Of the disciplines included in the AAMC report, only radiology and surgical specialties required a shorter clinical course. Many medical schools also require a neurology rotation, usually during the third year.

“There are still medical schools that do not require a neurology rotation,” said Dr. Vidic. Indiana University’s medical school requires a 1-month neurology rotation. “Per capita, we turn out more neurologists than any other medical school in the country because we give the exposure.”
 

General neurologists needed

The 2019 AAN report also calls for a renewed focus on general neurology in residency training as a way to ease patient wait times.

“General neurologists in the community can care for 75%-85% of patients with neurological disease,” said Michael Markowski, DO, a general neurologist in Cape Cod, Mass., who chaired the AAN’s general neurology task force from 2019 to 2020.

“Our residency training programs aren’t doing anything wrong, but we have data that show we have to start doing something different if we’re going to care for the one in three Americans with neurological disease who deserve care in their community rather than having to travel to subspecialty centers, which are primarily located in larger cities,” he said.

Based on an AAN survey, only about one-third of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists; most focus on movement disorders, dementia or Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, or another neurology subspecialty. It’s a sharp contrast from Europe, where the vast majority of neurologists identify as general neurologists.

“It was striking, the difference between the neurologists across Europe who identify as general neurologists, in comparison to the U.S.,” said Dr. Markowski, who was the AAN representative for the European Academy of Neurology General Neurology Task Force. “Close to 28% of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists, but across 37 European nations, that [percentage] is 76%.”

In Europe, general neurology rotations make up at least half of the first year of medical residency, Dr. Markowski said, adding that in the United States, there is more focus on inpatient rather than outpatient neurology rotations.

“If you never see that role model during your training who is a general neurologist, who can see the vast majority of all neurology patients, why would you think you could do that when you graduate?” Dr. Markowski said.
 

A legislative solution

While expanding neurology instruction in medical school and increasing exposure to general neurology rotations in residency could help, the clearest path to increasing the number of neurologists in the United States is to lift the decades-old residency cap.

The Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would do just that, adding 14,000 new medical residency positions over 7 years. The bill has bipartisan support, with hundreds of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Nearly 100 professional societies and medical and hospital groups have submitted testimony in support.

Similar legislation has been introduced at least six times since 2007 and no bill has ever made it out of committee. It’s unclear whether the latest version will meet a similar fate, but its expected price tag of $10-$12 billion over 10 years is a large hurdle to overcome.

Congress did take a small step in 2021 to increase residency spots, with legislation that allocated funding for 1,000 new positions over 5 years. Congress added another 200 spots to that total in a bill passed last year.

Critics say the slots are tied up in Medicare red tape and it’s a far cry from the 14,000 new positions experts say are needed to address the physician shortage.

“We absolutely want the larger bill, and we think that’s the way to go, but we’ll continue to work and try to add as many positions as we can,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy for AAMC.

Congress is also considering legislation to speed up prior reauthorization for Medicare, something the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is also seeking to do through rule changes. Nearly 30 state legislatures are debating similar legislation at the state level. And another bill in Congress would expand the Conrad State 30 program, which allows states to request J-1 visa waivers for international physicians to work in underserved areas.

“The solutions to this problem are multifactorial, and the answer that worked 10 years ago won’t be the right answer today, and the answer that works today won’t be the right answer 10 years from now,” Dr. Vidic said. “All we have to do is keep making changes, keep evolving, and the playing field continually changes.”

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

A national shortage of neurologists is creating “neurology deserts” around the country, forcing patients to wait longer and drive farther for care, news that comes as no revelation to Thomas Vidic, MD, clinical associate professor of neurology at Indiana University, South Bend.

In 2013, Dr. Vidic and other members of an American Academy of Neurology Workforce Task Force coauthored a report that predicted the demand for neurologists would outstrip supply by 2025. A decade later, it appears the situation is even more dire than anticipated.

While a nationwide physician shortage is affecting all specialties, neurology is facing a particularly difficult confluence of events. Advances in treatments for migraine, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and other neurological disorders have created a growing demand for care of pediatric and adult patients.

Over the next 7-27 years, as the number of Americans over age 65 increases, the incidences of Parkinson’s and dementia are set to double, and stroke cases are expected to rise by 20%.

At the same time, physician retirement and burnout are siphoning off neurologists from a workforce that isn’t growing fast enough. The American Medical Association reports the number of neurologists who treat patients in the United States grew by only 598 over the last decade, from 12,761 to 13,359.

This perfect storm has created what another AAN report calls a “grave threat” to patient care. The neurologist shortage “reduces access to care, worsens patient outcomes, and erodes career satisfaction and quality of life for neurologists as they face increasingly insurmountable demands,” write the authors of that 2019 report.

“We’re in trouble,” said Dr. Vidic. “We have a tremendous need for neurologists that we’re just not supporting.”
 

How did we get here?

Some of the challenges related to neurologist recruitment and retention are similar to those in other specialties. Compensation is certainly a factor, Dr. Vidic said.

Although neurologists’ incomes have increased significantly over the past decade, they still rank in the lower half of all medical specialties. In addition, only 50% of neurologists believe they are fairly compensated.

Burnout is another significant challenge. In 2019, before the pandemic, 53% of neurologists surveyed in Medscape’s National Physician Burnout, Depression, and Suicide Report indicated they were burned out. That percentage increased slightly in 2023, to 55%, with most respondents reporting a strong to severe impact on their lives.

The most common reason for burnout was administration and paperwork that cuts into neurologists’ time with patients. Charting and completing prior authorization and step therapy forms required by most insurers take an average of 17.6 hours a week for neurologists – much longer than the overall physician average and higher than almost all other specialties.

But perhaps the biggest contributor to the nationwide neurologist shortage is a 26-year cap on Medicare funding for medical residency. Enacted as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the legislation limits Medicare funding for medical residency training at 1996 levels. Most medical residencies are funded by the federal government and Medicare is the largest participating program.

As a result of the cap, the number of total residents in the United States – which grew by 20.6% between 1987 and 1997 – increased by only 8% from 1997 to 2007.

A new study on patients’ long travel times to neurology clinics, published in Neurology, is the latest to illustrate the real-world impact of too few neurologists amid growing caseloads.

Researchers found that 17% of the 563,216 Medicare beneficiaries who visited a neurologist in 2018 had to travel an average of 81 miles one way. Those long distances were endured most often by patients with brain and spinal cord cancers, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and multiple sclerosis.

While the neurologist shortage affects every state, a 2020 study suggests rural areas are most affected. This analysis of Medicare recipients showed that just 21% of rural residents with a neurological condition had access to a nearby specialist, compared with 27% of urban dwellers. The findings are similar to those of a 2017 report that identified “neurology deserts” in a number of states across the country.

Wait times for new neurology patients are reported to be among the longest of all specialties, with an average of 30 days for adult patients and 5-6 months for pediatric patients.


 

More neurology instruction needed

“It’s really hard knowing there are families out there who need the care but can’t get to it in a timely manner,” said Tyler Allison, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Working in a rural state means Dr. Allison has patients who drive 6 hours or more for an appointment. Although telemedicine has reduced the number of trips for many of his existing pediatric cases, it has had little impact on new patients. This is particularly frustrating, he said, when he sees a new patient with a condition that could have been treated by a primary care physician in their home community.

“One of the biggest problems we have in the child neurology world is that we don’t have enough primary care physicians who feel they are adequately trained to care for these patients,” said Dr. Allison, who also is the program director of the Child Neurology Residency Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City.

“Sometimes I see patients where, frankly, I only need to see them once to provide reassurance to the family and then they go back to their primary care doctor,” he said. “It’s the kind of thing that if we trained people appropriately from the beginning, it would shorten our wait list.”

Indeed, increasing neurology instruction during medical school is one recommendation offered in a 2019 report that characterized the neurologist shortage as a “grave threat.”

Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges show U.S. medical schools required an average of 4.4 weeks of neurology instruction in 2019-2020. Of the disciplines included in the AAMC report, only radiology and surgical specialties required a shorter clinical course. Many medical schools also require a neurology rotation, usually during the third year.

“There are still medical schools that do not require a neurology rotation,” said Dr. Vidic. Indiana University’s medical school requires a 1-month neurology rotation. “Per capita, we turn out more neurologists than any other medical school in the country because we give the exposure.”
 

General neurologists needed

The 2019 AAN report also calls for a renewed focus on general neurology in residency training as a way to ease patient wait times.

“General neurologists in the community can care for 75%-85% of patients with neurological disease,” said Michael Markowski, DO, a general neurologist in Cape Cod, Mass., who chaired the AAN’s general neurology task force from 2019 to 2020.

“Our residency training programs aren’t doing anything wrong, but we have data that show we have to start doing something different if we’re going to care for the one in three Americans with neurological disease who deserve care in their community rather than having to travel to subspecialty centers, which are primarily located in larger cities,” he said.

Based on an AAN survey, only about one-third of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists; most focus on movement disorders, dementia or Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, or another neurology subspecialty. It’s a sharp contrast from Europe, where the vast majority of neurologists identify as general neurologists.

“It was striking, the difference between the neurologists across Europe who identify as general neurologists, in comparison to the U.S.,” said Dr. Markowski, who was the AAN representative for the European Academy of Neurology General Neurology Task Force. “Close to 28% of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists, but across 37 European nations, that [percentage] is 76%.”

In Europe, general neurology rotations make up at least half of the first year of medical residency, Dr. Markowski said, adding that in the United States, there is more focus on inpatient rather than outpatient neurology rotations.

“If you never see that role model during your training who is a general neurologist, who can see the vast majority of all neurology patients, why would you think you could do that when you graduate?” Dr. Markowski said.
 

A legislative solution

While expanding neurology instruction in medical school and increasing exposure to general neurology rotations in residency could help, the clearest path to increasing the number of neurologists in the United States is to lift the decades-old residency cap.

The Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would do just that, adding 14,000 new medical residency positions over 7 years. The bill has bipartisan support, with hundreds of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Nearly 100 professional societies and medical and hospital groups have submitted testimony in support.

Similar legislation has been introduced at least six times since 2007 and no bill has ever made it out of committee. It’s unclear whether the latest version will meet a similar fate, but its expected price tag of $10-$12 billion over 10 years is a large hurdle to overcome.

Congress did take a small step in 2021 to increase residency spots, with legislation that allocated funding for 1,000 new positions over 5 years. Congress added another 200 spots to that total in a bill passed last year.

Critics say the slots are tied up in Medicare red tape and it’s a far cry from the 14,000 new positions experts say are needed to address the physician shortage.

“We absolutely want the larger bill, and we think that’s the way to go, but we’ll continue to work and try to add as many positions as we can,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy for AAMC.

Congress is also considering legislation to speed up prior reauthorization for Medicare, something the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is also seeking to do through rule changes. Nearly 30 state legislatures are debating similar legislation at the state level. And another bill in Congress would expand the Conrad State 30 program, which allows states to request J-1 visa waivers for international physicians to work in underserved areas.

“The solutions to this problem are multifactorial, and the answer that worked 10 years ago won’t be the right answer today, and the answer that works today won’t be the right answer 10 years from now,” Dr. Vidic said. “All we have to do is keep making changes, keep evolving, and the playing field continually changes.”

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

A national shortage of neurologists is creating “neurology deserts” around the country, forcing patients to wait longer and drive farther for care, news that comes as no revelation to Thomas Vidic, MD, clinical associate professor of neurology at Indiana University, South Bend.

In 2013, Dr. Vidic and other members of an American Academy of Neurology Workforce Task Force coauthored a report that predicted the demand for neurologists would outstrip supply by 2025. A decade later, it appears the situation is even more dire than anticipated.

While a nationwide physician shortage is affecting all specialties, neurology is facing a particularly difficult confluence of events. Advances in treatments for migraine, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and other neurological disorders have created a growing demand for care of pediatric and adult patients.

Over the next 7-27 years, as the number of Americans over age 65 increases, the incidences of Parkinson’s and dementia are set to double, and stroke cases are expected to rise by 20%.

At the same time, physician retirement and burnout are siphoning off neurologists from a workforce that isn’t growing fast enough. The American Medical Association reports the number of neurologists who treat patients in the United States grew by only 598 over the last decade, from 12,761 to 13,359.

This perfect storm has created what another AAN report calls a “grave threat” to patient care. The neurologist shortage “reduces access to care, worsens patient outcomes, and erodes career satisfaction and quality of life for neurologists as they face increasingly insurmountable demands,” write the authors of that 2019 report.

“We’re in trouble,” said Dr. Vidic. “We have a tremendous need for neurologists that we’re just not supporting.”
 

How did we get here?

Some of the challenges related to neurologist recruitment and retention are similar to those in other specialties. Compensation is certainly a factor, Dr. Vidic said.

Although neurologists’ incomes have increased significantly over the past decade, they still rank in the lower half of all medical specialties. In addition, only 50% of neurologists believe they are fairly compensated.

Burnout is another significant challenge. In 2019, before the pandemic, 53% of neurologists surveyed in Medscape’s National Physician Burnout, Depression, and Suicide Report indicated they were burned out. That percentage increased slightly in 2023, to 55%, with most respondents reporting a strong to severe impact on their lives.

The most common reason for burnout was administration and paperwork that cuts into neurologists’ time with patients. Charting and completing prior authorization and step therapy forms required by most insurers take an average of 17.6 hours a week for neurologists – much longer than the overall physician average and higher than almost all other specialties.

But perhaps the biggest contributor to the nationwide neurologist shortage is a 26-year cap on Medicare funding for medical residency. Enacted as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the legislation limits Medicare funding for medical residency training at 1996 levels. Most medical residencies are funded by the federal government and Medicare is the largest participating program.

As a result of the cap, the number of total residents in the United States – which grew by 20.6% between 1987 and 1997 – increased by only 8% from 1997 to 2007.

A new study on patients’ long travel times to neurology clinics, published in Neurology, is the latest to illustrate the real-world impact of too few neurologists amid growing caseloads.

Researchers found that 17% of the 563,216 Medicare beneficiaries who visited a neurologist in 2018 had to travel an average of 81 miles one way. Those long distances were endured most often by patients with brain and spinal cord cancers, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and multiple sclerosis.

While the neurologist shortage affects every state, a 2020 study suggests rural areas are most affected. This analysis of Medicare recipients showed that just 21% of rural residents with a neurological condition had access to a nearby specialist, compared with 27% of urban dwellers. The findings are similar to those of a 2017 report that identified “neurology deserts” in a number of states across the country.

Wait times for new neurology patients are reported to be among the longest of all specialties, with an average of 30 days for adult patients and 5-6 months for pediatric patients.


 

More neurology instruction needed

“It’s really hard knowing there are families out there who need the care but can’t get to it in a timely manner,” said Tyler Allison, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Working in a rural state means Dr. Allison has patients who drive 6 hours or more for an appointment. Although telemedicine has reduced the number of trips for many of his existing pediatric cases, it has had little impact on new patients. This is particularly frustrating, he said, when he sees a new patient with a condition that could have been treated by a primary care physician in their home community.

“One of the biggest problems we have in the child neurology world is that we don’t have enough primary care physicians who feel they are adequately trained to care for these patients,” said Dr. Allison, who also is the program director of the Child Neurology Residency Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City.

“Sometimes I see patients where, frankly, I only need to see them once to provide reassurance to the family and then they go back to their primary care doctor,” he said. “It’s the kind of thing that if we trained people appropriately from the beginning, it would shorten our wait list.”

Indeed, increasing neurology instruction during medical school is one recommendation offered in a 2019 report that characterized the neurologist shortage as a “grave threat.”

Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges show U.S. medical schools required an average of 4.4 weeks of neurology instruction in 2019-2020. Of the disciplines included in the AAMC report, only radiology and surgical specialties required a shorter clinical course. Many medical schools also require a neurology rotation, usually during the third year.

“There are still medical schools that do not require a neurology rotation,” said Dr. Vidic. Indiana University’s medical school requires a 1-month neurology rotation. “Per capita, we turn out more neurologists than any other medical school in the country because we give the exposure.”
 

General neurologists needed

The 2019 AAN report also calls for a renewed focus on general neurology in residency training as a way to ease patient wait times.

“General neurologists in the community can care for 75%-85% of patients with neurological disease,” said Michael Markowski, DO, a general neurologist in Cape Cod, Mass., who chaired the AAN’s general neurology task force from 2019 to 2020.

“Our residency training programs aren’t doing anything wrong, but we have data that show we have to start doing something different if we’re going to care for the one in three Americans with neurological disease who deserve care in their community rather than having to travel to subspecialty centers, which are primarily located in larger cities,” he said.

Based on an AAN survey, only about one-third of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists; most focus on movement disorders, dementia or Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, or another neurology subspecialty. It’s a sharp contrast from Europe, where the vast majority of neurologists identify as general neurologists.

“It was striking, the difference between the neurologists across Europe who identify as general neurologists, in comparison to the U.S.,” said Dr. Markowski, who was the AAN representative for the European Academy of Neurology General Neurology Task Force. “Close to 28% of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists, but across 37 European nations, that [percentage] is 76%.”

In Europe, general neurology rotations make up at least half of the first year of medical residency, Dr. Markowski said, adding that in the United States, there is more focus on inpatient rather than outpatient neurology rotations.

“If you never see that role model during your training who is a general neurologist, who can see the vast majority of all neurology patients, why would you think you could do that when you graduate?” Dr. Markowski said.
 

A legislative solution

While expanding neurology instruction in medical school and increasing exposure to general neurology rotations in residency could help, the clearest path to increasing the number of neurologists in the United States is to lift the decades-old residency cap.

The Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would do just that, adding 14,000 new medical residency positions over 7 years. The bill has bipartisan support, with hundreds of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Nearly 100 professional societies and medical and hospital groups have submitted testimony in support.

Similar legislation has been introduced at least six times since 2007 and no bill has ever made it out of committee. It’s unclear whether the latest version will meet a similar fate, but its expected price tag of $10-$12 billion over 10 years is a large hurdle to overcome.

Congress did take a small step in 2021 to increase residency spots, with legislation that allocated funding for 1,000 new positions over 5 years. Congress added another 200 spots to that total in a bill passed last year.

Critics say the slots are tied up in Medicare red tape and it’s a far cry from the 14,000 new positions experts say are needed to address the physician shortage.

“We absolutely want the larger bill, and we think that’s the way to go, but we’ll continue to work and try to add as many positions as we can,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy for AAMC.

Congress is also considering legislation to speed up prior reauthorization for Medicare, something the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is also seeking to do through rule changes. Nearly 30 state legislatures are debating similar legislation at the state level. And another bill in Congress would expand the Conrad State 30 program, which allows states to request J-1 visa waivers for international physicians to work in underserved areas.

“The solutions to this problem are multifactorial, and the answer that worked 10 years ago won’t be the right answer today, and the answer that works today won’t be the right answer 10 years from now,” Dr. Vidic said. “All we have to do is keep making changes, keep evolving, and the playing field continually changes.”

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

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m not the smartest dermatologist in our department. We’re fortunate to have a few super-smarties, you know, the ones who can still recite all the genes in Jean Bolognia’s dermatology textbook and have “Dermpath Bowl Champion” plaques covering their walls. Yet as our chief, I often get requests for a second or third opinion, hoping somehow I’ll discover a diagnosis that others missed. Sometimes they are real diagnostic dilemmas. Oftentimes they’re just itchy.

Kaiser Permanente

Recently an itchy 73-year-old woman came to see me. She had seen several competent dermatologists, had comprehensive workups, and had reasonable, even aggressive, attempts at treating. Not much interesting in her history. Nothing on exam. Cancer workup was negative as was pretty much any autoimmune or allergic cause. Biopsy? Maybe a touch of “dermal hypersensitivity.” She was still upset at being told previously she might have scabies. “Scabies!” she said indignantly. “How could I have scabies? No one has touched this body in nearly 4 years!” That’s interesting, I thought.

The electronic medical record holds a lot of useful information. We spend hours combing through histories, labs, pathology, scans, drugs to search for clues that might help with diagnoses. One tab we hardly visit is demographics. Why should that matter, of course? Age, phone number, and address are typically not contributory. But for this woman there was a bit of data that mattered; I checked right after her remark. Marital status: Widowed. She couldn’t have had scabies because no one touches her. Anymore. As our comprehensive workup did not find a cause nor did treatments mitigate her symptoms, I wondered if loneliness might be a contributing factor. I asked if anyone else was itching, any family, any friends? “No, I live alone. I don’t have anyone.”

Loneliness is a huge health risk. Lacking personal connection has psychological and physical consequences, increasing the risk for depression, cardiovascular disease, and dementia for example. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, it increases the risk for premature death comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Yet, we rarely (ever?) ask people if they’re lonely. In part because we don’t have good treatments. Remedies for loneliness are mostly societal – reaching out to the widowed, creating spaces that encourage connection, organizing events that bring people together. I cannot type any of these into the EMR orders. However, merely mentioning that a patient could be lonely can be therapeutic. They might not recognize its impact or that they have agency to make it better. They also might not see how their lives still have meaning, an important comorbidity of loneliness.

Not long after her appointment was a 63-year-old man who complained of a burning scrotum. He worked as a knife sharpener, setting up a folding table at local groceries and farmers markets. COVID killed most of his gigs. Like the woman who didn’t have scabies, comprehensive workups turned up nothing. And seemingly nothing, including antibiotics, gabapentin, indomethacin, lidocaine, helped. At his last visit, we talked about his condition. We had also talked about the proper way to sharpen a knife. I came in prepared to offer something dramatic this visit, methotrexate, dupilumab? But before I could speak, he opened a recycled plastic grocery bag and dumped out knives of various sizes. Also a small ax. He then proceeded to show me how each knife has to be sharpened in its own way. Before leaving he handed me a well-worn Arkansas sharpening stone. “For you,” he said. I gave him no additional recommendations or treatments. He hasn’t been back to dermatology since.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I’m not the smartest dermatologist in our department. We’re fortunate to have a few super-smarties, you know, the ones who can still recite all the genes in Jean Bolognia’s dermatology textbook and have “Dermpath Bowl Champion” plaques covering their walls. Yet as our chief, I often get requests for a second or third opinion, hoping somehow I’ll discover a diagnosis that others missed. Sometimes they are real diagnostic dilemmas. Oftentimes they’re just itchy.

Kaiser Permanente

Recently an itchy 73-year-old woman came to see me. She had seen several competent dermatologists, had comprehensive workups, and had reasonable, even aggressive, attempts at treating. Not much interesting in her history. Nothing on exam. Cancer workup was negative as was pretty much any autoimmune or allergic cause. Biopsy? Maybe a touch of “dermal hypersensitivity.” She was still upset at being told previously she might have scabies. “Scabies!” she said indignantly. “How could I have scabies? No one has touched this body in nearly 4 years!” That’s interesting, I thought.

The electronic medical record holds a lot of useful information. We spend hours combing through histories, labs, pathology, scans, drugs to search for clues that might help with diagnoses. One tab we hardly visit is demographics. Why should that matter, of course? Age, phone number, and address are typically not contributory. But for this woman there was a bit of data that mattered; I checked right after her remark. Marital status: Widowed. She couldn’t have had scabies because no one touches her. Anymore. As our comprehensive workup did not find a cause nor did treatments mitigate her symptoms, I wondered if loneliness might be a contributing factor. I asked if anyone else was itching, any family, any friends? “No, I live alone. I don’t have anyone.”

Loneliness is a huge health risk. Lacking personal connection has psychological and physical consequences, increasing the risk for depression, cardiovascular disease, and dementia for example. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, it increases the risk for premature death comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Yet, we rarely (ever?) ask people if they’re lonely. In part because we don’t have good treatments. Remedies for loneliness are mostly societal – reaching out to the widowed, creating spaces that encourage connection, organizing events that bring people together. I cannot type any of these into the EMR orders. However, merely mentioning that a patient could be lonely can be therapeutic. They might not recognize its impact or that they have agency to make it better. They also might not see how their lives still have meaning, an important comorbidity of loneliness.

Not long after her appointment was a 63-year-old man who complained of a burning scrotum. He worked as a knife sharpener, setting up a folding table at local groceries and farmers markets. COVID killed most of his gigs. Like the woman who didn’t have scabies, comprehensive workups turned up nothing. And seemingly nothing, including antibiotics, gabapentin, indomethacin, lidocaine, helped. At his last visit, we talked about his condition. We had also talked about the proper way to sharpen a knife. I came in prepared to offer something dramatic this visit, methotrexate, dupilumab? But before I could speak, he opened a recycled plastic grocery bag and dumped out knives of various sizes. Also a small ax. He then proceeded to show me how each knife has to be sharpened in its own way. Before leaving he handed me a well-worn Arkansas sharpening stone. “For you,” he said. I gave him no additional recommendations or treatments. He hasn’t been back to dermatology since.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I’m not the smartest dermatologist in our department. We’re fortunate to have a few super-smarties, you know, the ones who can still recite all the genes in Jean Bolognia’s dermatology textbook and have “Dermpath Bowl Champion” plaques covering their walls. Yet as our chief, I often get requests for a second or third opinion, hoping somehow I’ll discover a diagnosis that others missed. Sometimes they are real diagnostic dilemmas. Oftentimes they’re just itchy.

Kaiser Permanente

Recently an itchy 73-year-old woman came to see me. She had seen several competent dermatologists, had comprehensive workups, and had reasonable, even aggressive, attempts at treating. Not much interesting in her history. Nothing on exam. Cancer workup was negative as was pretty much any autoimmune or allergic cause. Biopsy? Maybe a touch of “dermal hypersensitivity.” She was still upset at being told previously she might have scabies. “Scabies!” she said indignantly. “How could I have scabies? No one has touched this body in nearly 4 years!” That’s interesting, I thought.

The electronic medical record holds a lot of useful information. We spend hours combing through histories, labs, pathology, scans, drugs to search for clues that might help with diagnoses. One tab we hardly visit is demographics. Why should that matter, of course? Age, phone number, and address are typically not contributory. But for this woman there was a bit of data that mattered; I checked right after her remark. Marital status: Widowed. She couldn’t have had scabies because no one touches her. Anymore. As our comprehensive workup did not find a cause nor did treatments mitigate her symptoms, I wondered if loneliness might be a contributing factor. I asked if anyone else was itching, any family, any friends? “No, I live alone. I don’t have anyone.”

Loneliness is a huge health risk. Lacking personal connection has psychological and physical consequences, increasing the risk for depression, cardiovascular disease, and dementia for example. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, it increases the risk for premature death comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Yet, we rarely (ever?) ask people if they’re lonely. In part because we don’t have good treatments. Remedies for loneliness are mostly societal – reaching out to the widowed, creating spaces that encourage connection, organizing events that bring people together. I cannot type any of these into the EMR orders. However, merely mentioning that a patient could be lonely can be therapeutic. They might not recognize its impact or that they have agency to make it better. They also might not see how their lives still have meaning, an important comorbidity of loneliness.

Not long after her appointment was a 63-year-old man who complained of a burning scrotum. He worked as a knife sharpener, setting up a folding table at local groceries and farmers markets. COVID killed most of his gigs. Like the woman who didn’t have scabies, comprehensive workups turned up nothing. And seemingly nothing, including antibiotics, gabapentin, indomethacin, lidocaine, helped. At his last visit, we talked about his condition. We had also talked about the proper way to sharpen a knife. I came in prepared to offer something dramatic this visit, methotrexate, dupilumab? But before I could speak, he opened a recycled plastic grocery bag and dumped out knives of various sizes. Also a small ax. He then proceeded to show me how each knife has to be sharpened in its own way. Before leaving he handed me a well-worn Arkansas sharpening stone. “For you,” he said. I gave him no additional recommendations or treatments. He hasn’t been back to dermatology since.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.