Literature Review

TOPLINE:

Among Korean women younger than 50 years, hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially stroke, a new cohort study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
• Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
• Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
• The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
• The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
• This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among Korean women younger than 50 years, hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially stroke, a new cohort study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
• Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
• Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
• The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
• The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
• This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among Korean women younger than 50 years, hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially stroke, a new cohort study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
• Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
• Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
• The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
• The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
• This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

A low-carbohydrate breakfast was better than a control (low-fat) breakfast to decrease glycemic variability throughout the day in type 2 diabetes, in new research.

These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.

“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”

“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”

The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
 

Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?

People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.

And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.

They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.

They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.

The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.

After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.

The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.

The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m², and A1c of 7.0%.

Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.

Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.

Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.

Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.

The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.

The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.

They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.

The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
 

Intervention improved CGM measures

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).

Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.

However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).

Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).

In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.

This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.

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

A low-carbohydrate breakfast was better than a control (low-fat) breakfast to decrease glycemic variability throughout the day in type 2 diabetes, in new research.

These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.

“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”

“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”

The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
 

Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?

People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.

And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.

They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.

They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.

The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.

After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.

The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.

The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m², and A1c of 7.0%.

Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.

Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.

Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.

Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.

The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.

The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.

They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.

The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
 

Intervention improved CGM measures

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).

Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.

However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).

Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).

In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.

This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.

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

A low-carbohydrate breakfast was better than a control (low-fat) breakfast to decrease glycemic variability throughout the day in type 2 diabetes, in new research.

These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.

“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”

“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”

The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
 

Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?

People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.

And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.

They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.

They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.

The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.

After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.

The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.

The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m², and A1c of 7.0%.

Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.

Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.

Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.

Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.

The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.

The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.

They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.

The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
 

Intervention improved CGM measures

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).

Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.

However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).

Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).

In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.

This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adult survivors of childhood cancer have an elevated risk of developing cognitive impairment years after their cancer diagnosis and treatment, new research shows.

Among more than 2,300 adult survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings, who served as controls, new-onset memory impairment emerged more often in survivors decades later.

The increased risk was associated with the cancer treatment that was provided as well as modifiable health behaviors and chronic health conditions.

Even 35 years after being diagnosed, cancer survivors who never received chemotherapies or radiation therapies known to damage the brain reported far greater memory impairment than did their siblings, first author Nicholas Phillips, MD, told this news organization.

What the findings suggest is that “we need to educate oncologists and primary care providers on the risks our survivors face long after completion of therapy,” said Dr. Phillips, of the epidemiology and cancer control department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Cancer survivors face an elevated risk for severe neurocognitive effects that can emerge 5-10 years following their diagnosis and treatment. However, it’s unclear whether new-onset neurocognitive problems can still develop a decade or more following diagnosis.

Over a long-term follow-up, Dr. Phillips and colleagues explored this question in 2,375 adult survivors of childhood cancer from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and 232 of their siblings.

Among the cancer cohort, 1,316 patients were survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 488 were survivors of central nervous system (CNS) tumors, and 571 had survived Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers determined the prevalence of new-onset neurocognitive impairment between baseline (23 years after diagnosis) and follow-up (35 years after diagnosis). New-onset neurocognitive impairment – present at follow-up but not at baseline – was defined as having a score in the worst 10% of the sibling cohort.

A higher proportion of survivors had new-onset memory impairment at follow-up compared with siblings. Specifically, about 8% of siblings had new-onset memory trouble, compared with 14% of ALL survivors treated with chemotherapy only, 26% of ALL survivors treated with cranial radiation, 35% of CNS tumor survivors, and 17% of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.

New-onset memory impairment was associated with cranial radiation among CNS tumor survivors (relative risk [RR], 1.97) and alkylator chemotherapy at or above 8,000 mg/m² among survivors of ALL who were treated without cranial radiation (RR, 2.80). The authors also found that smoking, low educational attainment, and low physical activity were associated with an elevated risk for new-onset memory impairment.

Dr. Phillips noted that current guidelines emphasize the importance of short-term monitoring of a survivor’s neurocognitive status on the basis of that person’s chemotherapy and radiation exposures.

However, “our study suggests that all survivors, regardless of their therapy, should be screened regularly for new-onset neurocognitive problems. And this screening should be done regularly for decades after diagnosis,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Phillips also noted the importance of communicating lifestyle modifications, such as not smoking and maintaining an active lifestyle.

“We need to start early and use the power of repetition when communicating with our survivors and their families,” Dr. Phillips said. “When our families and survivors hear the word ‘exercise,’ they think of gym memberships, lifting weights, and running on treadmills. But what we really want our survivors to do is stay active.”

What this means is engaging for about 2.5 hours a week in a range of activities, such as ballet, basketball, volleyball, bicycling, or swimming.

“And if our kids want to quit after 3 months, let them know that this is okay. They just need to replace that activity with another activity,” said Dr. Phillips. “We want them to find a fun hobby that they will enjoy that will keep them active.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Phillips has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adult survivors of childhood cancer have an elevated risk of developing cognitive impairment years after their cancer diagnosis and treatment, new research shows.

Among more than 2,300 adult survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings, who served as controls, new-onset memory impairment emerged more often in survivors decades later.

The increased risk was associated with the cancer treatment that was provided as well as modifiable health behaviors and chronic health conditions.

Even 35 years after being diagnosed, cancer survivors who never received chemotherapies or radiation therapies known to damage the brain reported far greater memory impairment than did their siblings, first author Nicholas Phillips, MD, told this news organization.

What the findings suggest is that “we need to educate oncologists and primary care providers on the risks our survivors face long after completion of therapy,” said Dr. Phillips, of the epidemiology and cancer control department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Cancer survivors face an elevated risk for severe neurocognitive effects that can emerge 5-10 years following their diagnosis and treatment. However, it’s unclear whether new-onset neurocognitive problems can still develop a decade or more following diagnosis.

Over a long-term follow-up, Dr. Phillips and colleagues explored this question in 2,375 adult survivors of childhood cancer from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and 232 of their siblings.

Among the cancer cohort, 1,316 patients were survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 488 were survivors of central nervous system (CNS) tumors, and 571 had survived Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers determined the prevalence of new-onset neurocognitive impairment between baseline (23 years after diagnosis) and follow-up (35 years after diagnosis). New-onset neurocognitive impairment – present at follow-up but not at baseline – was defined as having a score in the worst 10% of the sibling cohort.

A higher proportion of survivors had new-onset memory impairment at follow-up compared with siblings. Specifically, about 8% of siblings had new-onset memory trouble, compared with 14% of ALL survivors treated with chemotherapy only, 26% of ALL survivors treated with cranial radiation, 35% of CNS tumor survivors, and 17% of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.

New-onset memory impairment was associated with cranial radiation among CNS tumor survivors (relative risk [RR], 1.97) and alkylator chemotherapy at or above 8,000 mg/m² among survivors of ALL who were treated without cranial radiation (RR, 2.80). The authors also found that smoking, low educational attainment, and low physical activity were associated with an elevated risk for new-onset memory impairment.

Dr. Phillips noted that current guidelines emphasize the importance of short-term monitoring of a survivor’s neurocognitive status on the basis of that person’s chemotherapy and radiation exposures.

However, “our study suggests that all survivors, regardless of their therapy, should be screened regularly for new-onset neurocognitive problems. And this screening should be done regularly for decades after diagnosis,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Phillips also noted the importance of communicating lifestyle modifications, such as not smoking and maintaining an active lifestyle.

“We need to start early and use the power of repetition when communicating with our survivors and their families,” Dr. Phillips said. “When our families and survivors hear the word ‘exercise,’ they think of gym memberships, lifting weights, and running on treadmills. But what we really want our survivors to do is stay active.”

What this means is engaging for about 2.5 hours a week in a range of activities, such as ballet, basketball, volleyball, bicycling, or swimming.

“And if our kids want to quit after 3 months, let them know that this is okay. They just need to replace that activity with another activity,” said Dr. Phillips. “We want them to find a fun hobby that they will enjoy that will keep them active.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Phillips has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adult survivors of childhood cancer have an elevated risk of developing cognitive impairment years after their cancer diagnosis and treatment, new research shows.

Among more than 2,300 adult survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings, who served as controls, new-onset memory impairment emerged more often in survivors decades later.

The increased risk was associated with the cancer treatment that was provided as well as modifiable health behaviors and chronic health conditions.

Even 35 years after being diagnosed, cancer survivors who never received chemotherapies or radiation therapies known to damage the brain reported far greater memory impairment than did their siblings, first author Nicholas Phillips, MD, told this news organization.

What the findings suggest is that “we need to educate oncologists and primary care providers on the risks our survivors face long after completion of therapy,” said Dr. Phillips, of the epidemiology and cancer control department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Cancer survivors face an elevated risk for severe neurocognitive effects that can emerge 5-10 years following their diagnosis and treatment. However, it’s unclear whether new-onset neurocognitive problems can still develop a decade or more following diagnosis.

Over a long-term follow-up, Dr. Phillips and colleagues explored this question in 2,375 adult survivors of childhood cancer from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and 232 of their siblings.

Among the cancer cohort, 1,316 patients were survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 488 were survivors of central nervous system (CNS) tumors, and 571 had survived Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers determined the prevalence of new-onset neurocognitive impairment between baseline (23 years after diagnosis) and follow-up (35 years after diagnosis). New-onset neurocognitive impairment – present at follow-up but not at baseline – was defined as having a score in the worst 10% of the sibling cohort.

A higher proportion of survivors had new-onset memory impairment at follow-up compared with siblings. Specifically, about 8% of siblings had new-onset memory trouble, compared with 14% of ALL survivors treated with chemotherapy only, 26% of ALL survivors treated with cranial radiation, 35% of CNS tumor survivors, and 17% of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.

New-onset memory impairment was associated with cranial radiation among CNS tumor survivors (relative risk [RR], 1.97) and alkylator chemotherapy at or above 8,000 mg/m² among survivors of ALL who were treated without cranial radiation (RR, 2.80). The authors also found that smoking, low educational attainment, and low physical activity were associated with an elevated risk for new-onset memory impairment.

Dr. Phillips noted that current guidelines emphasize the importance of short-term monitoring of a survivor’s neurocognitive status on the basis of that person’s chemotherapy and radiation exposures.

However, “our study suggests that all survivors, regardless of their therapy, should be screened regularly for new-onset neurocognitive problems. And this screening should be done regularly for decades after diagnosis,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Phillips also noted the importance of communicating lifestyle modifications, such as not smoking and maintaining an active lifestyle.

“We need to start early and use the power of repetition when communicating with our survivors and their families,” Dr. Phillips said. “When our families and survivors hear the word ‘exercise,’ they think of gym memberships, lifting weights, and running on treadmills. But what we really want our survivors to do is stay active.”

What this means is engaging for about 2.5 hours a week in a range of activities, such as ballet, basketball, volleyball, bicycling, or swimming.

“And if our kids want to quit after 3 months, let them know that this is okay. They just need to replace that activity with another activity,” said Dr. Phillips. “We want them to find a fun hobby that they will enjoy that will keep them active.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Phillips has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) is more effective than fingolimod and natalizumab for patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), data indicate.

In a multicenter study that emulated pairwise trials, AHSCT was associated with a higher likelihood of disability improvement, compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio, 2.70).

Once the immune system is reconstituted, it can contribute to the healing process. AHSCT thus provides the possibility of improvement in MS. Disease-modifying therapies that require continued use, however, could inhibit that process.

“If you can stop the inflammation that’s driving this disease fairly early on, [patients] do have the capacity to repair,” said study author Mark Freedman, MD, a professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa. “And we start to see that especially in a treatment [like AHSCT] where you don’t maintain the hit on the immune system.”

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Pairwise analyses

Single-arm studies and an open-label, randomized trial have suggested that AHSCT has efficacy. The regimen is associated with a 0.3%-2.0% risk for mortality, but this risk has declined with better patient selection and clinical experience, according to the researchers. Comparative studies of AHSCT and DMTs are needed, but they are difficult to carry out, which is why the current team chose a propensity-score matched case–control design, according to lead author Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, head of the University of Melbourne’s Clinical Outcomes Research Unit.

The researchers examined data from 4,915 patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Of this population, 3.4% received AHSCT, 52.0% received fingolimod, 30.3% received natalizumab, and 14.2% received ocrelizumab. The proportion of women in the treatment groups ranged from 65% to 70%.

The researchers used pairwise matching to simulate the randomized, controlled trials comparing AHSCT with fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab. Patients were matched on the basis of sex, age, disability, relapse events at 12 and 24 months before baseline, time from first symptoms to baseline, the most effective previous DMT, and geographical region.

Compared with fingolimod, AHSCT was associated with fewer relapses (annualized relapse rate, 0.09 vs. 0.20; P < .001). This finding was confirmed by a reduced cumulative hazard of relapse (HR, 0.26).

Compared with natalizumab, AHSCT had only a modestly greater effect on annualized relapse rates (ARR, 0.08 vs. 0.10; P = .03), with a cumulative HR for relapses of 0.51.

There was no significant difference in the risk for relapse between treatment with AHSCT and with ocrelizumab (ARR, 0.09 vs. 0.06; P = .86), nor was the risk of cumulative relapses significantly different between these treatments.

Among patients included in the pairwise analyses who received AHSCT, 23.3% developed febrile neutropenia during mobilization, 11.3% developed serum sickness, and 8.8% were admitted to an intensive care unit. There were 82 serious adverse events among 58 patients after they were discharged post AHSCT treatment, including infections (59.8% of adverse events) that were primarily due to viral sources (41.5% of adverse events). There was one death (0.6%) due to veno-occlusive disease of the liver following busulfan exposure.

Some AHSCT protocols are stronger than others, and milder immune ablative measures are less likely to produce lasting effects. “We completely remove the old immune system and put in a brand new one,” said Dr. Freedman, referring to the practice at his center. “That’s a fairly horrendous procedure, and, not surprisingly, we’ve had a slight increase in the types of side effects, compared with other groups who don’t use that heavy-duty conditioning regimen, but we’ve had absolutely zero return of inflammatory events over 23 years that we’ve been doing this. Nobody’s had another attack, no one has even developed a single new MRI lesion.”

The so-called medium and light conditioning regimens are associated with a return of disease activity in about 25% of patients within 3 years, Dr. Freedman added. “You start to see new MRI lesions form and relapses occurring. It’s still better than any of the higher efficacy therapies, but it’s not stopped the disease.”

A key limitation of the study is that its efficacy analysis did not distinguish between different intensities of AHSCT regimens, according to the authors.
 

Encouraging results

AHSCT is highly effective at temporarily eliminating inflammation in the central nervous system, according to Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, and Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, who wrote an editorial that accompanied the study. As many as 35% of patients require DMTs at some point after AHSCT.

The results of the new study are encouraging, but plenty of unanswered questions remain, Dr. Cohen said. “Many studies demonstrate AHSCT to have potent durable efficacy that appears to be greater than that of the available DMTs, but some studies – for example, this one – suggest that AHSCT may be superior to some but not all DMTs. Therefore, where to place AHSCT in the overall treatment sequence remains uncertain.” Randomized, controlled trials that are now in process “hopefully will clarify,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Multiple Sclerosis Australia, and the MS Foundation of Canada. Dr. Kalincik has financial relationships with Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Merck, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen. Dr. Freedman has financial relationships with Sanofi-Genzyme Canada, Alexion, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer Healthcare, Beigene, BMS (Celgene), EMD, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck Serono, Quanterix, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Canada Innovation, Celestra Health, McKesson, and EMD Serono. Dr. Cohen has financial relationships with Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI.

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

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) is more effective than fingolimod and natalizumab for patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), data indicate.

In a multicenter study that emulated pairwise trials, AHSCT was associated with a higher likelihood of disability improvement, compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio, 2.70).

Once the immune system is reconstituted, it can contribute to the healing process. AHSCT thus provides the possibility of improvement in MS. Disease-modifying therapies that require continued use, however, could inhibit that process.

“If you can stop the inflammation that’s driving this disease fairly early on, [patients] do have the capacity to repair,” said study author Mark Freedman, MD, a professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa. “And we start to see that especially in a treatment [like AHSCT] where you don’t maintain the hit on the immune system.”

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Pairwise analyses

Single-arm studies and an open-label, randomized trial have suggested that AHSCT has efficacy. The regimen is associated with a 0.3%-2.0% risk for mortality, but this risk has declined with better patient selection and clinical experience, according to the researchers. Comparative studies of AHSCT and DMTs are needed, but they are difficult to carry out, which is why the current team chose a propensity-score matched case–control design, according to lead author Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, head of the University of Melbourne’s Clinical Outcomes Research Unit.

The researchers examined data from 4,915 patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Of this population, 3.4% received AHSCT, 52.0% received fingolimod, 30.3% received natalizumab, and 14.2% received ocrelizumab. The proportion of women in the treatment groups ranged from 65% to 70%.

The researchers used pairwise matching to simulate the randomized, controlled trials comparing AHSCT with fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab. Patients were matched on the basis of sex, age, disability, relapse events at 12 and 24 months before baseline, time from first symptoms to baseline, the most effective previous DMT, and geographical region.

Compared with fingolimod, AHSCT was associated with fewer relapses (annualized relapse rate, 0.09 vs. 0.20; P < .001). This finding was confirmed by a reduced cumulative hazard of relapse (HR, 0.26).

Compared with natalizumab, AHSCT had only a modestly greater effect on annualized relapse rates (ARR, 0.08 vs. 0.10; P = .03), with a cumulative HR for relapses of 0.51.

There was no significant difference in the risk for relapse between treatment with AHSCT and with ocrelizumab (ARR, 0.09 vs. 0.06; P = .86), nor was the risk of cumulative relapses significantly different between these treatments.

Among patients included in the pairwise analyses who received AHSCT, 23.3% developed febrile neutropenia during mobilization, 11.3% developed serum sickness, and 8.8% were admitted to an intensive care unit. There were 82 serious adverse events among 58 patients after they were discharged post AHSCT treatment, including infections (59.8% of adverse events) that were primarily due to viral sources (41.5% of adverse events). There was one death (0.6%) due to veno-occlusive disease of the liver following busulfan exposure.

Some AHSCT protocols are stronger than others, and milder immune ablative measures are less likely to produce lasting effects. “We completely remove the old immune system and put in a brand new one,” said Dr. Freedman, referring to the practice at his center. “That’s a fairly horrendous procedure, and, not surprisingly, we’ve had a slight increase in the types of side effects, compared with other groups who don’t use that heavy-duty conditioning regimen, but we’ve had absolutely zero return of inflammatory events over 23 years that we’ve been doing this. Nobody’s had another attack, no one has even developed a single new MRI lesion.”

The so-called medium and light conditioning regimens are associated with a return of disease activity in about 25% of patients within 3 years, Dr. Freedman added. “You start to see new MRI lesions form and relapses occurring. It’s still better than any of the higher efficacy therapies, but it’s not stopped the disease.”

A key limitation of the study is that its efficacy analysis did not distinguish between different intensities of AHSCT regimens, according to the authors.
 

Encouraging results

AHSCT is highly effective at temporarily eliminating inflammation in the central nervous system, according to Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, and Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, who wrote an editorial that accompanied the study. As many as 35% of patients require DMTs at some point after AHSCT.

The results of the new study are encouraging, but plenty of unanswered questions remain, Dr. Cohen said. “Many studies demonstrate AHSCT to have potent durable efficacy that appears to be greater than that of the available DMTs, but some studies – for example, this one – suggest that AHSCT may be superior to some but not all DMTs. Therefore, where to place AHSCT in the overall treatment sequence remains uncertain.” Randomized, controlled trials that are now in process “hopefully will clarify,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Multiple Sclerosis Australia, and the MS Foundation of Canada. Dr. Kalincik has financial relationships with Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Merck, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen. Dr. Freedman has financial relationships with Sanofi-Genzyme Canada, Alexion, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer Healthcare, Beigene, BMS (Celgene), EMD, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck Serono, Quanterix, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Canada Innovation, Celestra Health, McKesson, and EMD Serono. Dr. Cohen has financial relationships with Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI.

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

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) is more effective than fingolimod and natalizumab for patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), data indicate.

In a multicenter study that emulated pairwise trials, AHSCT was associated with a higher likelihood of disability improvement, compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio, 2.70).

Once the immune system is reconstituted, it can contribute to the healing process. AHSCT thus provides the possibility of improvement in MS. Disease-modifying therapies that require continued use, however, could inhibit that process.

“If you can stop the inflammation that’s driving this disease fairly early on, [patients] do have the capacity to repair,” said study author Mark Freedman, MD, a professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa. “And we start to see that especially in a treatment [like AHSCT] where you don’t maintain the hit on the immune system.”

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Pairwise analyses

Single-arm studies and an open-label, randomized trial have suggested that AHSCT has efficacy. The regimen is associated with a 0.3%-2.0% risk for mortality, but this risk has declined with better patient selection and clinical experience, according to the researchers. Comparative studies of AHSCT and DMTs are needed, but they are difficult to carry out, which is why the current team chose a propensity-score matched case–control design, according to lead author Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, head of the University of Melbourne’s Clinical Outcomes Research Unit.

The researchers examined data from 4,915 patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Of this population, 3.4% received AHSCT, 52.0% received fingolimod, 30.3% received natalizumab, and 14.2% received ocrelizumab. The proportion of women in the treatment groups ranged from 65% to 70%.

The researchers used pairwise matching to simulate the randomized, controlled trials comparing AHSCT with fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab. Patients were matched on the basis of sex, age, disability, relapse events at 12 and 24 months before baseline, time from first symptoms to baseline, the most effective previous DMT, and geographical region.

Compared with fingolimod, AHSCT was associated with fewer relapses (annualized relapse rate, 0.09 vs. 0.20; P < .001). This finding was confirmed by a reduced cumulative hazard of relapse (HR, 0.26).

Compared with natalizumab, AHSCT had only a modestly greater effect on annualized relapse rates (ARR, 0.08 vs. 0.10; P = .03), with a cumulative HR for relapses of 0.51.

There was no significant difference in the risk for relapse between treatment with AHSCT and with ocrelizumab (ARR, 0.09 vs. 0.06; P = .86), nor was the risk of cumulative relapses significantly different between these treatments.

Among patients included in the pairwise analyses who received AHSCT, 23.3% developed febrile neutropenia during mobilization, 11.3% developed serum sickness, and 8.8% were admitted to an intensive care unit. There were 82 serious adverse events among 58 patients after they were discharged post AHSCT treatment, including infections (59.8% of adverse events) that were primarily due to viral sources (41.5% of adverse events). There was one death (0.6%) due to veno-occlusive disease of the liver following busulfan exposure.

Some AHSCT protocols are stronger than others, and milder immune ablative measures are less likely to produce lasting effects. “We completely remove the old immune system and put in a brand new one,” said Dr. Freedman, referring to the practice at his center. “That’s a fairly horrendous procedure, and, not surprisingly, we’ve had a slight increase in the types of side effects, compared with other groups who don’t use that heavy-duty conditioning regimen, but we’ve had absolutely zero return of inflammatory events over 23 years that we’ve been doing this. Nobody’s had another attack, no one has even developed a single new MRI lesion.”

The so-called medium and light conditioning regimens are associated with a return of disease activity in about 25% of patients within 3 years, Dr. Freedman added. “You start to see new MRI lesions form and relapses occurring. It’s still better than any of the higher efficacy therapies, but it’s not stopped the disease.”

A key limitation of the study is that its efficacy analysis did not distinguish between different intensities of AHSCT regimens, according to the authors.
 

Encouraging results

AHSCT is highly effective at temporarily eliminating inflammation in the central nervous system, according to Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, and Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, who wrote an editorial that accompanied the study. As many as 35% of patients require DMTs at some point after AHSCT.

The results of the new study are encouraging, but plenty of unanswered questions remain, Dr. Cohen said. “Many studies demonstrate AHSCT to have potent durable efficacy that appears to be greater than that of the available DMTs, but some studies – for example, this one – suggest that AHSCT may be superior to some but not all DMTs. Therefore, where to place AHSCT in the overall treatment sequence remains uncertain.” Randomized, controlled trials that are now in process “hopefully will clarify,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Multiple Sclerosis Australia, and the MS Foundation of Canada. Dr. Kalincik has financial relationships with Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Merck, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen. Dr. Freedman has financial relationships with Sanofi-Genzyme Canada, Alexion, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer Healthcare, Beigene, BMS (Celgene), EMD, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck Serono, Quanterix, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Canada Innovation, Celestra Health, McKesson, and EMD Serono. Dr. Cohen has financial relationships with Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI.

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

Regular exercise may boost pain tolerance – a new finding that may have implications for those experiencing chronic pain, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of more than 10,000 adults, researchers found those who consistently engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the 7- to 8-year study period reported the highest pain tolerance. However, the results also showed that even light exercise was associated with greater pain tolerance.

“There were indications that both total amount of physical activity over time, as well as the direction of change in activity level over time matters to how high your pain tolerance is,” lead investigator Anders Pedersen Årnes, PT, MPH, research fellow and adviser at the University Hospital of North Norway, affiliated with the University of Tromsø, said in an interview. “As an observational study, this points toward the possibility that increased physical activity might increase pain tolerance.”

The findings were published online in PLOS One.
 

Anything is better than nothing

The researchers drew from the prospective, population-based Tromsø health study, a health survey that draws on surveys conducted periodically since 1974 among residents in northern Norway.

The study included 10,732 participants who completed surveys in 2007-2008 and again in 2015-2016.

Data on physical activity, experimental pain tolerance, sex, sociodemographic covariates, and chronic pain was collected through questionnaires, biological samples and clinical examination.

Pain tolerance was measured using the cold-pressor test (CPT), in which participants submerge their hand in icy water for as long as possible.

CPT tolerance was 7%, 14%, and 16% higher respectively for light, moderate, and vigorous consistent exercise across the two surveys versus the sedentary group.

“Engaging in habitual physical activity in leisure time is associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Any kind of activity over time is better than being sedentary.”

The researchers also found that people who were sedentary at baseline who reported greater physical activity at follow-up also had higher pain tolerance than those who remained sedentary, although this finding was not statistically significant.

This highest pain tolerance was noted in people who engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise over time, with a 20.4-second longer performance in the CPT than those who were consistently sedentary (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.1).

There was no significant difference in pain tolerance between men and women and all participants experienced a decline in tolerance over time.

“Results indicate that a positive change in physical activity level over time was associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Your total activity level might decide how much, as more seems to be better.”
 

More work needed

The long follow-up and large number of patients are two strengths of the study, Steven Cohen, MD, chief of pain medicine and professor of anesthesiology, neurology, physical medicine & rehabilitation and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This study explored the relationship between general physical activity levels and one form of acute pain, but data from other studies show a benefit for other forms of pain,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not part of the research. “Taken together, this suggests that exercise is beneficial for individuals living with pain.”

The findings demonstrate an association between exercise and pain tolerance and other research has shown evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, Dr. Cohen said. However, “more work is needed to determine what mediates these effects.”

Questions also remain about how exercise might impact tolerance or risk for chronic pain, he added.

Investigators are now working on a follow-up study of how the effect of exercise on pain tolerance might influence chronic pain risk, Mr. Årnes said.

The study received no specific funding. Mr. Årnes and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Regular exercise may boost pain tolerance – a new finding that may have implications for those experiencing chronic pain, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of more than 10,000 adults, researchers found those who consistently engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the 7- to 8-year study period reported the highest pain tolerance. However, the results also showed that even light exercise was associated with greater pain tolerance.

“There were indications that both total amount of physical activity over time, as well as the direction of change in activity level over time matters to how high your pain tolerance is,” lead investigator Anders Pedersen Årnes, PT, MPH, research fellow and adviser at the University Hospital of North Norway, affiliated with the University of Tromsø, said in an interview. “As an observational study, this points toward the possibility that increased physical activity might increase pain tolerance.”

The findings were published online in PLOS One.
 

Anything is better than nothing

The researchers drew from the prospective, population-based Tromsø health study, a health survey that draws on surveys conducted periodically since 1974 among residents in northern Norway.

The study included 10,732 participants who completed surveys in 2007-2008 and again in 2015-2016.

Data on physical activity, experimental pain tolerance, sex, sociodemographic covariates, and chronic pain was collected through questionnaires, biological samples and clinical examination.

Pain tolerance was measured using the cold-pressor test (CPT), in which participants submerge their hand in icy water for as long as possible.

CPT tolerance was 7%, 14%, and 16% higher respectively for light, moderate, and vigorous consistent exercise across the two surveys versus the sedentary group.

“Engaging in habitual physical activity in leisure time is associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Any kind of activity over time is better than being sedentary.”

The researchers also found that people who were sedentary at baseline who reported greater physical activity at follow-up also had higher pain tolerance than those who remained sedentary, although this finding was not statistically significant.

This highest pain tolerance was noted in people who engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise over time, with a 20.4-second longer performance in the CPT than those who were consistently sedentary (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.1).

There was no significant difference in pain tolerance between men and women and all participants experienced a decline in tolerance over time.

“Results indicate that a positive change in physical activity level over time was associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Your total activity level might decide how much, as more seems to be better.”
 

More work needed

The long follow-up and large number of patients are two strengths of the study, Steven Cohen, MD, chief of pain medicine and professor of anesthesiology, neurology, physical medicine & rehabilitation and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This study explored the relationship between general physical activity levels and one form of acute pain, but data from other studies show a benefit for other forms of pain,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not part of the research. “Taken together, this suggests that exercise is beneficial for individuals living with pain.”

The findings demonstrate an association between exercise and pain tolerance and other research has shown evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, Dr. Cohen said. However, “more work is needed to determine what mediates these effects.”

Questions also remain about how exercise might impact tolerance or risk for chronic pain, he added.

Investigators are now working on a follow-up study of how the effect of exercise on pain tolerance might influence chronic pain risk, Mr. Årnes said.

The study received no specific funding. Mr. Årnes and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Regular exercise may boost pain tolerance – a new finding that may have implications for those experiencing chronic pain, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of more than 10,000 adults, researchers found those who consistently engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the 7- to 8-year study period reported the highest pain tolerance. However, the results also showed that even light exercise was associated with greater pain tolerance.

“There were indications that both total amount of physical activity over time, as well as the direction of change in activity level over time matters to how high your pain tolerance is,” lead investigator Anders Pedersen Årnes, PT, MPH, research fellow and adviser at the University Hospital of North Norway, affiliated with the University of Tromsø, said in an interview. “As an observational study, this points toward the possibility that increased physical activity might increase pain tolerance.”

The findings were published online in PLOS One.
 

Anything is better than nothing

The researchers drew from the prospective, population-based Tromsø health study, a health survey that draws on surveys conducted periodically since 1974 among residents in northern Norway.

The study included 10,732 participants who completed surveys in 2007-2008 and again in 2015-2016.

Data on physical activity, experimental pain tolerance, sex, sociodemographic covariates, and chronic pain was collected through questionnaires, biological samples and clinical examination.

Pain tolerance was measured using the cold-pressor test (CPT), in which participants submerge their hand in icy water for as long as possible.

CPT tolerance was 7%, 14%, and 16% higher respectively for light, moderate, and vigorous consistent exercise across the two surveys versus the sedentary group.

“Engaging in habitual physical activity in leisure time is associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Any kind of activity over time is better than being sedentary.”

The researchers also found that people who were sedentary at baseline who reported greater physical activity at follow-up also had higher pain tolerance than those who remained sedentary, although this finding was not statistically significant.

This highest pain tolerance was noted in people who engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise over time, with a 20.4-second longer performance in the CPT than those who were consistently sedentary (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.1).

There was no significant difference in pain tolerance between men and women and all participants experienced a decline in tolerance over time.

“Results indicate that a positive change in physical activity level over time was associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Your total activity level might decide how much, as more seems to be better.”
 

More work needed

The long follow-up and large number of patients are two strengths of the study, Steven Cohen, MD, chief of pain medicine and professor of anesthesiology, neurology, physical medicine & rehabilitation and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This study explored the relationship between general physical activity levels and one form of acute pain, but data from other studies show a benefit for other forms of pain,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not part of the research. “Taken together, this suggests that exercise is beneficial for individuals living with pain.”

The findings demonstrate an association between exercise and pain tolerance and other research has shown evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, Dr. Cohen said. However, “more work is needed to determine what mediates these effects.”

Questions also remain about how exercise might impact tolerance or risk for chronic pain, he added.

Investigators are now working on a follow-up study of how the effect of exercise on pain tolerance might influence chronic pain risk, Mr. Årnes said.

The study received no specific funding. Mr. Årnes and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using surgical implants inside the brain, scientists have recorded for the first time electrical patterns that occur when a person is feeling chronic pain, a new study in Nature Neuroscience concluded.

The researchers used the devices on four patients who had felt endless nerve pain for more than a year. The devices recorded several times a day, which could pave “the way for implanted devices to one day predict pain signals or even short-circuit them,” The New York Times reported.

The study says the pain “was associated with electrical fluctuations in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area involved in emotion regulation, self-evaluation, and decision-making,” The Times reported. “The research suggests that such patterns of brain activity could serve as biomarkers to guide diagnosis and treatment for millions of people with shooting or burning chronic pain linked to a damaged nervous system.”

Ajay Wasan, MD, and a pain specialist at the University of Pittsburgh who was not involved in the study praised it to the Times.

“The study really advances a whole generation of research that has shown that the functioning of the brain is really important to processing and perceiving pain,” he said.

Chronic pain is defined as persistent or recurring and lasting more than three months. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 20% of Americans experience it. It has been linked with depression, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, suicide, and substance use.

Yet, the study’s authors noted, “pain severity is often measured through subjective report, while objective biomarkers that may guide diagnosis and treatment are lacking.”

Medtronic provided devices for the study. The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Using surgical implants inside the brain, scientists have recorded for the first time electrical patterns that occur when a person is feeling chronic pain, a new study in Nature Neuroscience concluded.

The researchers used the devices on four patients who had felt endless nerve pain for more than a year. The devices recorded several times a day, which could pave “the way for implanted devices to one day predict pain signals or even short-circuit them,” The New York Times reported.

The study says the pain “was associated with electrical fluctuations in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area involved in emotion regulation, self-evaluation, and decision-making,” The Times reported. “The research suggests that such patterns of brain activity could serve as biomarkers to guide diagnosis and treatment for millions of people with shooting or burning chronic pain linked to a damaged nervous system.”

Ajay Wasan, MD, and a pain specialist at the University of Pittsburgh who was not involved in the study praised it to the Times.

“The study really advances a whole generation of research that has shown that the functioning of the brain is really important to processing and perceiving pain,” he said.

Chronic pain is defined as persistent or recurring and lasting more than three months. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 20% of Americans experience it. It has been linked with depression, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, suicide, and substance use.

Yet, the study’s authors noted, “pain severity is often measured through subjective report, while objective biomarkers that may guide diagnosis and treatment are lacking.”

Medtronic provided devices for the study. The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Using surgical implants inside the brain, scientists have recorded for the first time electrical patterns that occur when a person is feeling chronic pain, a new study in Nature Neuroscience concluded.

The researchers used the devices on four patients who had felt endless nerve pain for more than a year. The devices recorded several times a day, which could pave “the way for implanted devices to one day predict pain signals or even short-circuit them,” The New York Times reported.

The study says the pain “was associated with electrical fluctuations in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area involved in emotion regulation, self-evaluation, and decision-making,” The Times reported. “The research suggests that such patterns of brain activity could serve as biomarkers to guide diagnosis and treatment for millions of people with shooting or burning chronic pain linked to a damaged nervous system.”

Ajay Wasan, MD, and a pain specialist at the University of Pittsburgh who was not involved in the study praised it to the Times.

“The study really advances a whole generation of research that has shown that the functioning of the brain is really important to processing and perceiving pain,” he said.

Chronic pain is defined as persistent or recurring and lasting more than three months. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 20% of Americans experience it. It has been linked with depression, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, suicide, and substance use.

Yet, the study’s authors noted, “pain severity is often measured through subjective report, while objective biomarkers that may guide diagnosis and treatment are lacking.”

Medtronic provided devices for the study. The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

People who develop type 2 diabetes before age 60 years are at threefold greater risk for dementia compared with those who don’t develop diabetes, new findings suggest.

Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was  published online in Diabetologia.

The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.  

“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.  

Johns Hopkins University

Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”

This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
 

Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development

Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.

Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.

After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.  
 

Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk  

Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).

The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).  

“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.

Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.

“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.

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

People who develop type 2 diabetes before age 60 years are at threefold greater risk for dementia compared with those who don’t develop diabetes, new findings suggest.

Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was  published online in Diabetologia.

The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.  

“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.  

Johns Hopkins University

Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”

This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
 

Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development

Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.

Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.

After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.  
 

Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk  

Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).

The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).  

“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.

Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.

“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.

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

People who develop type 2 diabetes before age 60 years are at threefold greater risk for dementia compared with those who don’t develop diabetes, new findings suggest.

Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was  published online in Diabetologia.

The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.  

“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.  

Johns Hopkins University

Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”

This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
 

Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development

Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.

Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.

After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.  
 

Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk  

Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).

The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).  

“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.

Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.

“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.

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

Using a microsimulation algorithm that accounts for the effect on mortality, a team from Marseille, France, has shown that interventions targeting the three main vascular risk factors for dementia – hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity – could significantly reduce the burden of dementia by 2040.

Among the three modifiable risk factors, the prevention of hypertension would be the most efficient, with by far the biggest impact on dementia.

Although these modeling results could appear too optimistic, since total disappearance of the risk factors was assumed, the authors say the results do show that targeted interventions for these factors could be effective in reducing the future burden of dementia.
 

Increasing prevalence

According to the World Alzheimer Report 2018, 50 million people around the world were living with dementia; a population roughly around the size of South Korea or Spain. That community is likely to rise to about 152 million people by 2050, which is similar to the size of Russia or Bangladesh, the result of an aging population.

Among modifiable risk factors, many studies support a deleterious effect of hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity on the risk of dementia. However, since the distribution of these risk factors could have a direct impact on mortality, reducing it should increase life expectancy and the number of cases of dementia.

The team, headed by Hélène Jacqmin-Gadda, PhD, research director at the University of Bordeaux (France), has developed a microsimulation model capable of predicting the burden of dementia while accounting for the impact on mortality. The team used this approach to assess the impact of interventions targeting these three main risk factors on the burden of dementia in France by 2040.
 

Removing risk factors

The researchers estimated the incidence of dementia for men and women using data from the 2020 PAQUID cohort, and these data were combined with the projections forecast by the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies to account for mortality with and without dementia.

Without intervention, the prevalence rate of dementia in 2040 would be 9.6% among men and 14% among women older than 65 years.

These figures would decrease to 6.4% (−33%) and 10.4% (−26%), respectively, under the intervention scenario whereby the three modifiable vascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity) would be removed simultaneously beginning in 2020. The prevalence rates are significantly reduced for men and women from age 75 years. In this scenario, life expectancy without dementia would increase by 3.4 years in men and 2.6 years in women, the result of men being more exposed to these three risk factors.

Other scenarios have estimated dementia prevalence with the disappearance of just one of these risk factors. For example, the disappearance of hypertension alone from 2020 could decrease dementia prevalence by 21% in men and 16% in women (because this risk factor is less common in women than in men) by 2040. This reduction would be associated with a decrease in the lifelong probability of dementia among men and women and a gain in life expectancy without dementia of 2 years in men and 1.4 years in women.

Among the three factors, hypertension has the largest impact on dementia burden in the French population, since this is, by far, the most prevalent (69% in men and 49% in women), while intervention targeting only diabetes or physical inactivity would lead to a reduction in dementia prevalence of only 4%-7%.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from Univadis France. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Using a microsimulation algorithm that accounts for the effect on mortality, a team from Marseille, France, has shown that interventions targeting the three main vascular risk factors for dementia – hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity – could significantly reduce the burden of dementia by 2040.

Among the three modifiable risk factors, the prevention of hypertension would be the most efficient, with by far the biggest impact on dementia.

Although these modeling results could appear too optimistic, since total disappearance of the risk factors was assumed, the authors say the results do show that targeted interventions for these factors could be effective in reducing the future burden of dementia.
 

Increasing prevalence

According to the World Alzheimer Report 2018, 50 million people around the world were living with dementia; a population roughly around the size of South Korea or Spain. That community is likely to rise to about 152 million people by 2050, which is similar to the size of Russia or Bangladesh, the result of an aging population.

Among modifiable risk factors, many studies support a deleterious effect of hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity on the risk of dementia. However, since the distribution of these risk factors could have a direct impact on mortality, reducing it should increase life expectancy and the number of cases of dementia.

The team, headed by Hélène Jacqmin-Gadda, PhD, research director at the University of Bordeaux (France), has developed a microsimulation model capable of predicting the burden of dementia while accounting for the impact on mortality. The team used this approach to assess the impact of interventions targeting these three main risk factors on the burden of dementia in France by 2040.
 

Removing risk factors

The researchers estimated the incidence of dementia for men and women using data from the 2020 PAQUID cohort, and these data were combined with the projections forecast by the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies to account for mortality with and without dementia.

Without intervention, the prevalence rate of dementia in 2040 would be 9.6% among men and 14% among women older than 65 years.

These figures would decrease to 6.4% (−33%) and 10.4% (−26%), respectively, under the intervention scenario whereby the three modifiable vascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity) would be removed simultaneously beginning in 2020. The prevalence rates are significantly reduced for men and women from age 75 years. In this scenario, life expectancy without dementia would increase by 3.4 years in men and 2.6 years in women, the result of men being more exposed to these three risk factors.

Other scenarios have estimated dementia prevalence with the disappearance of just one of these risk factors. For example, the disappearance of hypertension alone from 2020 could decrease dementia prevalence by 21% in men and 16% in women (because this risk factor is less common in women than in men) by 2040. This reduction would be associated with a decrease in the lifelong probability of dementia among men and women and a gain in life expectancy without dementia of 2 years in men and 1.4 years in women.

Among the three factors, hypertension has the largest impact on dementia burden in the French population, since this is, by far, the most prevalent (69% in men and 49% in women), while intervention targeting only diabetes or physical inactivity would lead to a reduction in dementia prevalence of only 4%-7%.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from Univadis France. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Using a microsimulation algorithm that accounts for the effect on mortality, a team from Marseille, France, has shown that interventions targeting the three main vascular risk factors for dementia – hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity – could significantly reduce the burden of dementia by 2040.

Among the three modifiable risk factors, the prevention of hypertension would be the most efficient, with by far the biggest impact on dementia.

Although these modeling results could appear too optimistic, since total disappearance of the risk factors was assumed, the authors say the results do show that targeted interventions for these factors could be effective in reducing the future burden of dementia.
 

Increasing prevalence

According to the World Alzheimer Report 2018, 50 million people around the world were living with dementia; a population roughly around the size of South Korea or Spain. That community is likely to rise to about 152 million people by 2050, which is similar to the size of Russia or Bangladesh, the result of an aging population.

Among modifiable risk factors, many studies support a deleterious effect of hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity on the risk of dementia. However, since the distribution of these risk factors could have a direct impact on mortality, reducing it should increase life expectancy and the number of cases of dementia.

The team, headed by Hélène Jacqmin-Gadda, PhD, research director at the University of Bordeaux (France), has developed a microsimulation model capable of predicting the burden of dementia while accounting for the impact on mortality. The team used this approach to assess the impact of interventions targeting these three main risk factors on the burden of dementia in France by 2040.
 

Removing risk factors

The researchers estimated the incidence of dementia for men and women using data from the 2020 PAQUID cohort, and these data were combined with the projections forecast by the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies to account for mortality with and without dementia.

Without intervention, the prevalence rate of dementia in 2040 would be 9.6% among men and 14% among women older than 65 years.

These figures would decrease to 6.4% (−33%) and 10.4% (−26%), respectively, under the intervention scenario whereby the three modifiable vascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity) would be removed simultaneously beginning in 2020. The prevalence rates are significantly reduced for men and women from age 75 years. In this scenario, life expectancy without dementia would increase by 3.4 years in men and 2.6 years in women, the result of men being more exposed to these three risk factors.

Other scenarios have estimated dementia prevalence with the disappearance of just one of these risk factors. For example, the disappearance of hypertension alone from 2020 could decrease dementia prevalence by 21% in men and 16% in women (because this risk factor is less common in women than in men) by 2040. This reduction would be associated with a decrease in the lifelong probability of dementia among men and women and a gain in life expectancy without dementia of 2 years in men and 1.4 years in women.

Among the three factors, hypertension has the largest impact on dementia burden in the French population, since this is, by far, the most prevalent (69% in men and 49% in women), while intervention targeting only diabetes or physical inactivity would lead to a reduction in dementia prevalence of only 4%-7%.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from Univadis France. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) has issued new consensus guidance on the assessment and treatment of neurologic sequelae in patients with long COVID, also known as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC).

The new recommendations, which were published online in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, are the result of a collaboration between experts from a variety of medical specialties at 41 long COVID clinics across the United States.

Because physical medicine specialists treat individuals with disability and functional impairments, the AAPM&R was among the first organizations to initiate guidance for the assessment and treatment of long COVID and issued its first consensus statement that addressed long COVID–related fatigue in 2021.

Even though the number of COVID cases and hospitalizations has declined from the peak, long COVID continues to be a major public health issue, Steven R. Flanagan, MD, AAPM&R president-elect and Howard A. Rusk Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, told reporters attending a press briefing.

“There is some evidence that some of the antivirals may actually help reduce the incidence but not everybody gets them,” said Dr. Flanagan. “In our own clinic here, we continue to see many, many people with problems associated with long COVID,” he added.

According to the consensus guidelines, about 80% of patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 have neurological symptoms. But these symptoms are not just limited to people who had severe illness, said Leslie Rydberg, MD, coauthor of the neurology long COVID guidance statement.

“What we know is that many people with mild or moderate COVID infection end up with neurologic sequelae that last longer than 4 weeks,” said Dr. Rydberg, the Henry and Monika Betts Medical Student Education Chair and assistant residency program director at Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.

Dr. Rydberg added that patients who have symptoms for longer than a month after the initial infection should be evaluated. Although the definition of what constitutes PASC is evolving, the guidance states that the literature indicates that it should be defined as the persistence of symptoms 4 weeks beyond the initial infection.

The most common neurological symptoms are headache, weakness, muscular pain, nerve pain, tremors, peripheral nerve issues, sleep issues, and cognitive effects, Dr. Rydberg told reporters.

She added that “identifying patients with progressive or ominous ‘red flag’ neurological symptoms is essential for emergent triaging.”

Among the red flags are sudden or progressive weakness or sudden or progressive sensory changes, because those could indicate an acute neurologic condition – either due to long COVID or other illnesses – such as a stroke or a problem with the spinal cord, Guillain-Barré syndrome, or myopathy.

While those signs and symptoms would likely be flagged by most clinicians, some of the emergent or urgent signs – such as upper motor neuron changes on physical exam – are more subtle, said Dr. Rydberg.

The new guidance spells out steps for initial evaluation, including identification of red flag symptoms, and also provides treatment recommendations.

Experts also recommend clinicians do the following:

• Treat underlying medical conditions such as pain, psychiatric, cardiovascular, respiratory, and other conditions that may be contributing to neurologic symptoms.
• Consider polypharmacy reduction, looking especially closely at medications with a known impact on neurologic symptoms.
• Urge patients to get regular physical activity, as tolerated, while avoiding overuse syndrome.
• Work with physical, occupational, and speech therapists to increase function and independence.
• Refer patients to counseling and community resources for risk factor modification.

The treatment recommendations are more in-depth for specific long-COVID conditions including headache, cranial neuropathies, sleep disturbances, and neuropathies.

The guidance includes a special statement on the importance of ensuring equitable access to care. Underserved, marginalized, and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities had notably higher rates of infection, hospitalization, and death with less access to rehabilitation services before the pandemic, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at Long School of Medicine, UT Health San Antonio, and a guideline coauthor.

“We know that these communities have been historically underserved, that there’s already access issues, and that they’re disproportionately impacted by the pandemic,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “This continues as patients develop PASC, or long COVID,” she said, adding that these individuals are still less likely to receive rehabilitation services. “This can lead to poorer outcomes and widened disparities.”

The AAPM&R PASC Multi-Disciplinary Collaborative has previously issued consensus guidance on fatigue, breathing discomfort and respiratory distress, cognitive symptoms, cardiovascular complications, pediatrics, and autonomic dysfunction, and will be publishing guidance on mental health soon.

The collaborative is also putting together a compilation of all the guidance – “a ‘greatest hits’ if you like,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez.

For clinicians who are unaccustomed to caring for patients with long COVID, the hope is that this new guidance will help them manage the condition, Dr. Rydberg said.

The guidance was written with the support of the AAPM&R. Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez and two coauthors have disclosed grants, contracts, or honoraria from various funding sources, some paid to their institutions and some personal reimbursement for activities related to PASC and broader areas of research and expertise. However, none of the authors have any conflicts relative to the work on the guidance.
 

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

The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) has issued new consensus guidance on the assessment and treatment of neurologic sequelae in patients with long COVID, also known as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC).

The new recommendations, which were published online in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, are the result of a collaboration between experts from a variety of medical specialties at 41 long COVID clinics across the United States.

Because physical medicine specialists treat individuals with disability and functional impairments, the AAPM&R was among the first organizations to initiate guidance for the assessment and treatment of long COVID and issued its first consensus statement that addressed long COVID–related fatigue in 2021.

Even though the number of COVID cases and hospitalizations has declined from the peak, long COVID continues to be a major public health issue, Steven R. Flanagan, MD, AAPM&R president-elect and Howard A. Rusk Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, told reporters attending a press briefing.

“There is some evidence that some of the antivirals may actually help reduce the incidence but not everybody gets them,” said Dr. Flanagan. “In our own clinic here, we continue to see many, many people with problems associated with long COVID,” he added.

According to the consensus guidelines, about 80% of patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 have neurological symptoms. But these symptoms are not just limited to people who had severe illness, said Leslie Rydberg, MD, coauthor of the neurology long COVID guidance statement.

“What we know is that many people with mild or moderate COVID infection end up with neurologic sequelae that last longer than 4 weeks,” said Dr. Rydberg, the Henry and Monika Betts Medical Student Education Chair and assistant residency program director at Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.

Dr. Rydberg added that patients who have symptoms for longer than a month after the initial infection should be evaluated. Although the definition of what constitutes PASC is evolving, the guidance states that the literature indicates that it should be defined as the persistence of symptoms 4 weeks beyond the initial infection.

The most common neurological symptoms are headache, weakness, muscular pain, nerve pain, tremors, peripheral nerve issues, sleep issues, and cognitive effects, Dr. Rydberg told reporters.

She added that “identifying patients with progressive or ominous ‘red flag’ neurological symptoms is essential for emergent triaging.”

Among the red flags are sudden or progressive weakness or sudden or progressive sensory changes, because those could indicate an acute neurologic condition – either due to long COVID or other illnesses – such as a stroke or a problem with the spinal cord, Guillain-Barré syndrome, or myopathy.

While those signs and symptoms would likely be flagged by most clinicians, some of the emergent or urgent signs – such as upper motor neuron changes on physical exam – are more subtle, said Dr. Rydberg.

The new guidance spells out steps for initial evaluation, including identification of red flag symptoms, and also provides treatment recommendations.

Experts also recommend clinicians do the following:

• Treat underlying medical conditions such as pain, psychiatric, cardiovascular, respiratory, and other conditions that may be contributing to neurologic symptoms.
• Consider polypharmacy reduction, looking especially closely at medications with a known impact on neurologic symptoms.
• Urge patients to get regular physical activity, as tolerated, while avoiding overuse syndrome.
• Work with physical, occupational, and speech therapists to increase function and independence.
• Refer patients to counseling and community resources for risk factor modification.

The treatment recommendations are more in-depth for specific long-COVID conditions including headache, cranial neuropathies, sleep disturbances, and neuropathies.

The guidance includes a special statement on the importance of ensuring equitable access to care. Underserved, marginalized, and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities had notably higher rates of infection, hospitalization, and death with less access to rehabilitation services before the pandemic, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at Long School of Medicine, UT Health San Antonio, and a guideline coauthor.

“We know that these communities have been historically underserved, that there’s already access issues, and that they’re disproportionately impacted by the pandemic,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “This continues as patients develop PASC, or long COVID,” she said, adding that these individuals are still less likely to receive rehabilitation services. “This can lead to poorer outcomes and widened disparities.”

The AAPM&R PASC Multi-Disciplinary Collaborative has previously issued consensus guidance on fatigue, breathing discomfort and respiratory distress, cognitive symptoms, cardiovascular complications, pediatrics, and autonomic dysfunction, and will be publishing guidance on mental health soon.

The collaborative is also putting together a compilation of all the guidance – “a ‘greatest hits’ if you like,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez.

For clinicians who are unaccustomed to caring for patients with long COVID, the hope is that this new guidance will help them manage the condition, Dr. Rydberg said.

The guidance was written with the support of the AAPM&R. Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez and two coauthors have disclosed grants, contracts, or honoraria from various funding sources, some paid to their institutions and some personal reimbursement for activities related to PASC and broader areas of research and expertise. However, none of the authors have any conflicts relative to the work on the guidance.
 

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

The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) has issued new consensus guidance on the assessment and treatment of neurologic sequelae in patients with long COVID, also known as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC).

The new recommendations, which were published online in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, are the result of a collaboration between experts from a variety of medical specialties at 41 long COVID clinics across the United States.

Because physical medicine specialists treat individuals with disability and functional impairments, the AAPM&R was among the first organizations to initiate guidance for the assessment and treatment of long COVID and issued its first consensus statement that addressed long COVID–related fatigue in 2021.

Even though the number of COVID cases and hospitalizations has declined from the peak, long COVID continues to be a major public health issue, Steven R. Flanagan, MD, AAPM&R president-elect and Howard A. Rusk Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, told reporters attending a press briefing.

“There is some evidence that some of the antivirals may actually help reduce the incidence but not everybody gets them,” said Dr. Flanagan. “In our own clinic here, we continue to see many, many people with problems associated with long COVID,” he added.

According to the consensus guidelines, about 80% of patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 have neurological symptoms. But these symptoms are not just limited to people who had severe illness, said Leslie Rydberg, MD, coauthor of the neurology long COVID guidance statement.

“What we know is that many people with mild or moderate COVID infection end up with neurologic sequelae that last longer than 4 weeks,” said Dr. Rydberg, the Henry and Monika Betts Medical Student Education Chair and assistant residency program director at Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.

Dr. Rydberg added that patients who have symptoms for longer than a month after the initial infection should be evaluated. Although the definition of what constitutes PASC is evolving, the guidance states that the literature indicates that it should be defined as the persistence of symptoms 4 weeks beyond the initial infection.

The most common neurological symptoms are headache, weakness, muscular pain, nerve pain, tremors, peripheral nerve issues, sleep issues, and cognitive effects, Dr. Rydberg told reporters.

She added that “identifying patients with progressive or ominous ‘red flag’ neurological symptoms is essential for emergent triaging.”

Among the red flags are sudden or progressive weakness or sudden or progressive sensory changes, because those could indicate an acute neurologic condition – either due to long COVID or other illnesses – such as a stroke or a problem with the spinal cord, Guillain-Barré syndrome, or myopathy.

While those signs and symptoms would likely be flagged by most clinicians, some of the emergent or urgent signs – such as upper motor neuron changes on physical exam – are more subtle, said Dr. Rydberg.

The new guidance spells out steps for initial evaluation, including identification of red flag symptoms, and also provides treatment recommendations.

Experts also recommend clinicians do the following:

• Treat underlying medical conditions such as pain, psychiatric, cardiovascular, respiratory, and other conditions that may be contributing to neurologic symptoms.
• Consider polypharmacy reduction, looking especially closely at medications with a known impact on neurologic symptoms.
• Urge patients to get regular physical activity, as tolerated, while avoiding overuse syndrome.
• Work with physical, occupational, and speech therapists to increase function and independence.
• Refer patients to counseling and community resources for risk factor modification.

The treatment recommendations are more in-depth for specific long-COVID conditions including headache, cranial neuropathies, sleep disturbances, and neuropathies.

The guidance includes a special statement on the importance of ensuring equitable access to care. Underserved, marginalized, and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities had notably higher rates of infection, hospitalization, and death with less access to rehabilitation services before the pandemic, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at Long School of Medicine, UT Health San Antonio, and a guideline coauthor.

“We know that these communities have been historically underserved, that there’s already access issues, and that they’re disproportionately impacted by the pandemic,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “This continues as patients develop PASC, or long COVID,” she said, adding that these individuals are still less likely to receive rehabilitation services. “This can lead to poorer outcomes and widened disparities.”

The AAPM&R PASC Multi-Disciplinary Collaborative has previously issued consensus guidance on fatigue, breathing discomfort and respiratory distress, cognitive symptoms, cardiovascular complications, pediatrics, and autonomic dysfunction, and will be publishing guidance on mental health soon.

The collaborative is also putting together a compilation of all the guidance – “a ‘greatest hits’ if you like,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez.

For clinicians who are unaccustomed to caring for patients with long COVID, the hope is that this new guidance will help them manage the condition, Dr. Rydberg said.

The guidance was written with the support of the AAPM&R. Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez and two coauthors have disclosed grants, contracts, or honoraria from various funding sources, some paid to their institutions and some personal reimbursement for activities related to PASC and broader areas of research and expertise. However, none of the authors have any conflicts relative to the work on the guidance.
 

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