Fran Lowry

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early childhood trauma alters brain function in adults, according to new research.

In a meta-analysis of 83 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies that included more than 5000 patients, exposure to adversity was associated with higher amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity across a range of task domains. 

The altered responses were only observed in studies including adult participants and were clearest in participants who had been exposed to severe threat and trauma. Children and adolescents did not show significant adversity-related differences in brain function.

“By integrating the results from 83 previous brain imaging studies, we were able to provide what is arguably the clearest evidence to date that adults who have been exposed to early life trauma have different brain responses to psychological challenges,” senior author Marco Leyton, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Temperament Adversity Biology Lab at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, said in a press release. “This includes exaggerated responses in a region that processes emotionally intense information (the amygdala) and reduced responses in a region that helps people regulate emotions and associated behaviors (the frontal cortex).”

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Changes in Reactivity 

“One big issue we have in psychology, and especially in neuroscience, is that single-study results are often not reproducible,” lead author Niki Hosseini-Kamkar, PhD, neuroimaging research associate at Atlas Institute for Veterans and Families at Royal Ottawa Hospital, said in an interview.

“It was very important to me to use a meta-analysis to get an overall picture of what brain regions are consistently reported across all these different studies. That is what we did here,” she added. Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar conducted this analysis while she was a postdoctoral research fellow at McGill University in Montreal.

She and her group examined adversity exposure and brain function in the following four domains of task-based fMRI: emotion processing, memory processing, inhibitory control, and reward processing. Their study included 5242 participants. The researchers used multilevel kernel density analyses (MKDA) to analyze the data more accurately. 

Adversity exposure was associated with higher amygdala reactivity (P < .001) and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity (P < .001), compared with controls with no adversity exposure.

Threat types of adversity were associated with greater blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses in the superior temporal gyrus and lower prefrontal cortex activity in participants exposed to threat, compared with controls. 

Analysis of studies of inhibitory control tasks found greater activity in the claustrum, anterior cingulate cortex, and insula in the adversity-exposed participants, compared with controls.

In addition, studies that administered emotion processing tasks showed greater amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortex (superior frontal gyrus) reactivity in the adversity exposure group, compared with controls.

“The main takeaway is that there’s an exaggerated activity in the amygdala, and diminished prefrontal cortex activity, and together, this might point to a mechanism for how a history of adversity diminishes the ability to cope with later stressors and can therefore heighten susceptibility to mental illness,” said Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar.
 

‘Important Next Step’ 

“Overall, the meta-analysis by Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar and colleagues represents an important next step in understanding associations of adversity exposure with brain function while highlighting the importance of considering the role of development,” wrote Dylan G. Gee, PhD, associate professor of psychology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Alexis Brieant, PhD, assistant professor of research or creative works at the University of Vermont in Burlington, in an accompanying commentary. 

They also applauded the authors for their use of MKDA. They noted that the technique “allows inferences about the consistency and specificity of brain activation across studies and is thought to be more robust to small sample sizes than activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis.” 

Dr. Gee and Dr. Brieant also observed that a recent ALE meta-analysis failed to find a link between adversity and brain function. “Although it is important to note that the file drawer problem — by which researchers are less likely to publish null results — presents challenges to the inferences that can be drawn in the current work, the current study may provide complementary information to prior ALE meta-analyses.” 
 

Epigenetic Changes? 

Commenting on the findings for this article, Victor Fornari, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, New York, said, “Historically, when someone went through a traumatic event, they were told to just get over it, because somehow trauma doesn’t have a lasting impact on the brain.” Dr. Fornari was not involved in the research.

“We have certainly learned so much more over the past decade about early adversity and that it does have a profound impact on the brain and probably even epigenetic changes in our genes,” Dr. Fornari said.

“This is a very important avenue of investigation. People are really trying to understand if there are biological markers that we can actually measure in the brain that will offer us a window to better understand the consequence of adversity, as well as possible avenues of treatment.” 

No funding source for this study was reported. Dr. Leyton, Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar, and Dr. Fornari report no relevant financial relationships. Gee reports receiving grants from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Brieant reports receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health outside the submitted work. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early childhood trauma alters brain function in adults, according to new research.

In a meta-analysis of 83 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies that included more than 5000 patients, exposure to adversity was associated with higher amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity across a range of task domains. 

The altered responses were only observed in studies including adult participants and were clearest in participants who had been exposed to severe threat and trauma. Children and adolescents did not show significant adversity-related differences in brain function.

“By integrating the results from 83 previous brain imaging studies, we were able to provide what is arguably the clearest evidence to date that adults who have been exposed to early life trauma have different brain responses to psychological challenges,” senior author Marco Leyton, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Temperament Adversity Biology Lab at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, said in a press release. “This includes exaggerated responses in a region that processes emotionally intense information (the amygdala) and reduced responses in a region that helps people regulate emotions and associated behaviors (the frontal cortex).”

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Changes in Reactivity 

“One big issue we have in psychology, and especially in neuroscience, is that single-study results are often not reproducible,” lead author Niki Hosseini-Kamkar, PhD, neuroimaging research associate at Atlas Institute for Veterans and Families at Royal Ottawa Hospital, said in an interview.

“It was very important to me to use a meta-analysis to get an overall picture of what brain regions are consistently reported across all these different studies. That is what we did here,” she added. Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar conducted this analysis while she was a postdoctoral research fellow at McGill University in Montreal.

She and her group examined adversity exposure and brain function in the following four domains of task-based fMRI: emotion processing, memory processing, inhibitory control, and reward processing. Their study included 5242 participants. The researchers used multilevel kernel density analyses (MKDA) to analyze the data more accurately. 

Adversity exposure was associated with higher amygdala reactivity (P < .001) and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity (P < .001), compared with controls with no adversity exposure.

Threat types of adversity were associated with greater blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses in the superior temporal gyrus and lower prefrontal cortex activity in participants exposed to threat, compared with controls. 

Analysis of studies of inhibitory control tasks found greater activity in the claustrum, anterior cingulate cortex, and insula in the adversity-exposed participants, compared with controls.

In addition, studies that administered emotion processing tasks showed greater amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortex (superior frontal gyrus) reactivity in the adversity exposure group, compared with controls.

“The main takeaway is that there’s an exaggerated activity in the amygdala, and diminished prefrontal cortex activity, and together, this might point to a mechanism for how a history of adversity diminishes the ability to cope with later stressors and can therefore heighten susceptibility to mental illness,” said Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar.
 

‘Important Next Step’ 

“Overall, the meta-analysis by Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar and colleagues represents an important next step in understanding associations of adversity exposure with brain function while highlighting the importance of considering the role of development,” wrote Dylan G. Gee, PhD, associate professor of psychology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Alexis Brieant, PhD, assistant professor of research or creative works at the University of Vermont in Burlington, in an accompanying commentary. 

They also applauded the authors for their use of MKDA. They noted that the technique “allows inferences about the consistency and specificity of brain activation across studies and is thought to be more robust to small sample sizes than activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis.” 

Dr. Gee and Dr. Brieant also observed that a recent ALE meta-analysis failed to find a link between adversity and brain function. “Although it is important to note that the file drawer problem — by which researchers are less likely to publish null results — presents challenges to the inferences that can be drawn in the current work, the current study may provide complementary information to prior ALE meta-analyses.” 
 

Epigenetic Changes? 

Commenting on the findings for this article, Victor Fornari, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, New York, said, “Historically, when someone went through a traumatic event, they were told to just get over it, because somehow trauma doesn’t have a lasting impact on the brain.” Dr. Fornari was not involved in the research.

“We have certainly learned so much more over the past decade about early adversity and that it does have a profound impact on the brain and probably even epigenetic changes in our genes,” Dr. Fornari said.

“This is a very important avenue of investigation. People are really trying to understand if there are biological markers that we can actually measure in the brain that will offer us a window to better understand the consequence of adversity, as well as possible avenues of treatment.” 

No funding source for this study was reported. Dr. Leyton, Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar, and Dr. Fornari report no relevant financial relationships. Gee reports receiving grants from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Brieant reports receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health outside the submitted work. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early childhood trauma alters brain function in adults, according to new research.

In a meta-analysis of 83 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies that included more than 5000 patients, exposure to adversity was associated with higher amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity across a range of task domains. 

The altered responses were only observed in studies including adult participants and were clearest in participants who had been exposed to severe threat and trauma. Children and adolescents did not show significant adversity-related differences in brain function.

“By integrating the results from 83 previous brain imaging studies, we were able to provide what is arguably the clearest evidence to date that adults who have been exposed to early life trauma have different brain responses to psychological challenges,” senior author Marco Leyton, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Temperament Adversity Biology Lab at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, said in a press release. “This includes exaggerated responses in a region that processes emotionally intense information (the amygdala) and reduced responses in a region that helps people regulate emotions and associated behaviors (the frontal cortex).”

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Changes in Reactivity 

“One big issue we have in psychology, and especially in neuroscience, is that single-study results are often not reproducible,” lead author Niki Hosseini-Kamkar, PhD, neuroimaging research associate at Atlas Institute for Veterans and Families at Royal Ottawa Hospital, said in an interview.

“It was very important to me to use a meta-analysis to get an overall picture of what brain regions are consistently reported across all these different studies. That is what we did here,” she added. Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar conducted this analysis while she was a postdoctoral research fellow at McGill University in Montreal.

She and her group examined adversity exposure and brain function in the following four domains of task-based fMRI: emotion processing, memory processing, inhibitory control, and reward processing. Their study included 5242 participants. The researchers used multilevel kernel density analyses (MKDA) to analyze the data more accurately. 

Adversity exposure was associated with higher amygdala reactivity (P < .001) and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity (P < .001), compared with controls with no adversity exposure.

Threat types of adversity were associated with greater blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses in the superior temporal gyrus and lower prefrontal cortex activity in participants exposed to threat, compared with controls. 

Analysis of studies of inhibitory control tasks found greater activity in the claustrum, anterior cingulate cortex, and insula in the adversity-exposed participants, compared with controls.

In addition, studies that administered emotion processing tasks showed greater amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortex (superior frontal gyrus) reactivity in the adversity exposure group, compared with controls.

“The main takeaway is that there’s an exaggerated activity in the amygdala, and diminished prefrontal cortex activity, and together, this might point to a mechanism for how a history of adversity diminishes the ability to cope with later stressors and can therefore heighten susceptibility to mental illness,” said Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar.
 

‘Important Next Step’ 

“Overall, the meta-analysis by Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar and colleagues represents an important next step in understanding associations of adversity exposure with brain function while highlighting the importance of considering the role of development,” wrote Dylan G. Gee, PhD, associate professor of psychology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Alexis Brieant, PhD, assistant professor of research or creative works at the University of Vermont in Burlington, in an accompanying commentary. 

They also applauded the authors for their use of MKDA. They noted that the technique “allows inferences about the consistency and specificity of brain activation across studies and is thought to be more robust to small sample sizes than activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis.” 

Dr. Gee and Dr. Brieant also observed that a recent ALE meta-analysis failed to find a link between adversity and brain function. “Although it is important to note that the file drawer problem — by which researchers are less likely to publish null results — presents challenges to the inferences that can be drawn in the current work, the current study may provide complementary information to prior ALE meta-analyses.” 
 

Epigenetic Changes? 

Commenting on the findings for this article, Victor Fornari, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, New York, said, “Historically, when someone went through a traumatic event, they were told to just get over it, because somehow trauma doesn’t have a lasting impact on the brain.” Dr. Fornari was not involved in the research.

“We have certainly learned so much more over the past decade about early adversity and that it does have a profound impact on the brain and probably even epigenetic changes in our genes,” Dr. Fornari said.

“This is a very important avenue of investigation. People are really trying to understand if there are biological markers that we can actually measure in the brain that will offer us a window to better understand the consequence of adversity, as well as possible avenues of treatment.” 

No funding source for this study was reported. Dr. Leyton, Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar, and Dr. Fornari report no relevant financial relationships. Gee reports receiving grants from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Brieant reports receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health outside the submitted work. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with chronic migraine, combination therapy with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and onabotulinumtoxinA may be more effective than monotherapy, possibly owing to the synergistic mechanism of action of the two agents, a new study suggests.

“People with chronic migraine may be the toughest to treat. They have the greatest disability, and often insurance companies would prefer monotherapy, but in these patients, sometimes using a multifaceted approach and using different drugs that target different pathophysiologies of migraine can probably provide greater benefit in terms of reducing the frequency and severity of the headaches,” study investigator MaryAnn Mays, MD, staff neurologist at the Headache and Facial Pain Clinic in the Neurologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

Fewer Migraine Days

OnabotulinumtodxinA (onabot) has been shown to selectively inhibit unmyelinated C-fibers but not A-delta-meningeal nociceptors. Anti-CGRP mAb therapies have been shown to prevent the activation of A-delta-fibers but not C-fibers, said Dr. Mays.

For the study, the investigators reviewed the electronic medical records of 194 patients who had been concurrently treated with anti-CGRP mAbs and onabot. Most (86.6%) were women; ages ranged from 36 to 65 years, and at baseline, they had been having an average of 28 (+4.6) monthly migraine days (MMDs).

The number of MMDs were assessed at two periods: 3 months after monotherapy with an anti-CGRP mAb or onabot injections, and 3 months after combined therapy.

Monotherapy reduced the average number of MMDs from 28 to 18.6, for a reduction of 9.4 days (P > .0001).

After initiation of combined therapy, the average number of MMDs decreased further, from 18.6 MMDs to 12.1 MMDs (P > .0001).

In all, the combination of onabot and anti-CGRP mAbs resulted in a total MMD reduction of 15.8 (P > .0001).

In addition, most patients (68%) reported a 50% or greater reduction in MMDs, and 46.4% reported a 75% or greater reduction.
 

Great News for Patients

Commenting for this article, Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, said the study findings “support what we see in clinical practice and what we suspected from preclinical data.”

Single-agent treatment is not sufficient for many patients. Data confirming the benefit of dual therapy will provide more evidence to insurance companies of the need for coverage.

“We have lots of individuals for whom single treatment is not sufficient and who need this combination of treatment, and it is often denied by insurance. There are preclinical data suggesting synergy, but insurance says it is experimental, so the claims get denied. This leaves patients having to choose which drug they want to continue with, and that’s really heartbreaking,” Dr. Halker Singh said.

The importance of this study is that it adds more data to support evidence-based therapies for migraine and to help patients get the treatment they need, she added.

Dr. Mays reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, and Teva. Dr. Halker Singh reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with chronic migraine, combination therapy with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and onabotulinumtoxinA may be more effective than monotherapy, possibly owing to the synergistic mechanism of action of the two agents, a new study suggests.

“People with chronic migraine may be the toughest to treat. They have the greatest disability, and often insurance companies would prefer monotherapy, but in these patients, sometimes using a multifaceted approach and using different drugs that target different pathophysiologies of migraine can probably provide greater benefit in terms of reducing the frequency and severity of the headaches,” study investigator MaryAnn Mays, MD, staff neurologist at the Headache and Facial Pain Clinic in the Neurologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

Fewer Migraine Days

OnabotulinumtodxinA (onabot) has been shown to selectively inhibit unmyelinated C-fibers but not A-delta-meningeal nociceptors. Anti-CGRP mAb therapies have been shown to prevent the activation of A-delta-fibers but not C-fibers, said Dr. Mays.

For the study, the investigators reviewed the electronic medical records of 194 patients who had been concurrently treated with anti-CGRP mAbs and onabot. Most (86.6%) were women; ages ranged from 36 to 65 years, and at baseline, they had been having an average of 28 (+4.6) monthly migraine days (MMDs).

The number of MMDs were assessed at two periods: 3 months after monotherapy with an anti-CGRP mAb or onabot injections, and 3 months after combined therapy.

Monotherapy reduced the average number of MMDs from 28 to 18.6, for a reduction of 9.4 days (P > .0001).

After initiation of combined therapy, the average number of MMDs decreased further, from 18.6 MMDs to 12.1 MMDs (P > .0001).

In all, the combination of onabot and anti-CGRP mAbs resulted in a total MMD reduction of 15.8 (P > .0001).

In addition, most patients (68%) reported a 50% or greater reduction in MMDs, and 46.4% reported a 75% or greater reduction.
 

Great News for Patients

Commenting for this article, Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, said the study findings “support what we see in clinical practice and what we suspected from preclinical data.”

Single-agent treatment is not sufficient for many patients. Data confirming the benefit of dual therapy will provide more evidence to insurance companies of the need for coverage.

“We have lots of individuals for whom single treatment is not sufficient and who need this combination of treatment, and it is often denied by insurance. There are preclinical data suggesting synergy, but insurance says it is experimental, so the claims get denied. This leaves patients having to choose which drug they want to continue with, and that’s really heartbreaking,” Dr. Halker Singh said.

The importance of this study is that it adds more data to support evidence-based therapies for migraine and to help patients get the treatment they need, she added.

Dr. Mays reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, and Teva. Dr. Halker Singh reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with chronic migraine, combination therapy with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and onabotulinumtoxinA may be more effective than monotherapy, possibly owing to the synergistic mechanism of action of the two agents, a new study suggests.

“People with chronic migraine may be the toughest to treat. They have the greatest disability, and often insurance companies would prefer monotherapy, but in these patients, sometimes using a multifaceted approach and using different drugs that target different pathophysiologies of migraine can probably provide greater benefit in terms of reducing the frequency and severity of the headaches,” study investigator MaryAnn Mays, MD, staff neurologist at the Headache and Facial Pain Clinic in the Neurologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

Fewer Migraine Days

OnabotulinumtodxinA (onabot) has been shown to selectively inhibit unmyelinated C-fibers but not A-delta-meningeal nociceptors. Anti-CGRP mAb therapies have been shown to prevent the activation of A-delta-fibers but not C-fibers, said Dr. Mays.

For the study, the investigators reviewed the electronic medical records of 194 patients who had been concurrently treated with anti-CGRP mAbs and onabot. Most (86.6%) were women; ages ranged from 36 to 65 years, and at baseline, they had been having an average of 28 (+4.6) monthly migraine days (MMDs).

The number of MMDs were assessed at two periods: 3 months after monotherapy with an anti-CGRP mAb or onabot injections, and 3 months after combined therapy.

Monotherapy reduced the average number of MMDs from 28 to 18.6, for a reduction of 9.4 days (P > .0001).

After initiation of combined therapy, the average number of MMDs decreased further, from 18.6 MMDs to 12.1 MMDs (P > .0001).

In all, the combination of onabot and anti-CGRP mAbs resulted in a total MMD reduction of 15.8 (P > .0001).

In addition, most patients (68%) reported a 50% or greater reduction in MMDs, and 46.4% reported a 75% or greater reduction.
 

Great News for Patients

Commenting for this article, Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, said the study findings “support what we see in clinical practice and what we suspected from preclinical data.”

Single-agent treatment is not sufficient for many patients. Data confirming the benefit of dual therapy will provide more evidence to insurance companies of the need for coverage.

“We have lots of individuals for whom single treatment is not sufficient and who need this combination of treatment, and it is often denied by insurance. There are preclinical data suggesting synergy, but insurance says it is experimental, so the claims get denied. This leaves patients having to choose which drug they want to continue with, and that’s really heartbreaking,” Dr. Halker Singh said.

The importance of this study is that it adds more data to support evidence-based therapies for migraine and to help patients get the treatment they need, she added.

Dr. Mays reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, and Teva. Dr. Halker Singh reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society has developed a four-stage classification of acute atherothrombotic myocardial infarction based on the severity of the injury to the myocardium.

Relying on more than 50 years of data on acute MI with reperfusion therapy, the society has identified the following four stages of progressively worsening myocardial tissue injury:

• Aborted MI (no or minimal myocardial necrosis).
• MI with significant cardiomyocyte necrosis but without microvascular injury.
• Cardiomyocyte necrosis and microvascular dysfunction leading to microvascular obstruction (that is, “no reflow”).
• Cardiomyocyte and microvascular necrosis leading to reperfusion hemorrhage.

The classification is described in an expert consensus statement that was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

The new classification will allow for better risk stratification and more appropriate treatment and provide refined endpoints for clinical trials and translational research, according to the authors.

Currently, all patients with acute MI receive the same treatment, even though they may have different levels of tissue injury severity, statement author Andreas Kumar, MD, chair of the writing group and associate professor of medicine at Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Sudbury, said in an interview.

“In some cases, treatment for a mild stage 1 acute MI may be deadly for someone with stage 4 hemorrhagic MI,” said Dr. Kumar.
 

Technological advances

The classification is based on decades of data. “The initial data were obtained with pathology studies in the 1970s. When cardiac MRI came around, around the year 2000, suddenly there was a noninvasive imaging method where we could investigate patients in vivo,” said Dr. Kumar. “We learned a lot about tissue changes in acute MI. And especially in the last 2 to 5 years, we have learned a lot about hemorrhagic MI. So, this then gave us enough knowledge to come up with this new classification.”

The idea of classifying acute MI came to Dr. Kumar and senior author Rohan Dharmakumar, PhD, executive director of the Krannert Cardiovascular Research Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, when both were at the University of Toronto.

“This work has been years in the making,” Dr. Dharmakumar said in an interview. “We’ve been thinking about this for a long time, but we needed to get substantial layers of evidence to support the classification. We had a feeling about these stages for a long time, but that feeling needed to be substantiated.”

In 2022, Dr. Dharmakumar and Dr. Kumar observed that damage to the heart from MI was not only a result of ischemia caused by a blocked artery, but also a result of bleeding in the myocardium after the artery had been opened. Their findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The author of an accompanying editorial lauded the investigators “for providing new, mechanistic insights into a difficult clinical problem that has an unmet therapeutic need.”

“Hemorrhagic MI is a very dangerous injury because hemorrhage itself causes a lot of problems,” said Dr. Kumar. “We reported that there is infarct expansion after reperfusion, so once you open up the vessel, the heart attack actually gets larger. We also showed that the remodeling of these hearts is worse. These patients take a second hit with hemorrhage occurring in the myocardium.”
 

Classification and staging

“The standard guideline therapy for somebody who comes into the hospital is to put in a stent, open the artery, have the patient stay in the hospital for 48-72 hours, and then be released home,” said Dr. Dharmukumar. “But here’s the problem. These two patients who are going back home have different levels of injury, yet they are taking the same medications. Even inside the hospital, we have heterogeneity in mortality risk. But we are not paying attention to one patient differently than the other, even though we should, because their injuries are very different.”

The CCS classification may provide endpoints and outcome measures beyond the commonly used clinical markers, which could lead to improved treatments to help patients recover from their cardiac events.

“We have this issue of rampant heart failure in acute MI survivors. We’ve gotten really good at saving patients from immediate death, but now we are just postponing some of the serious problems survivors are going to face, said Dr. Dharmukumar. “What are we doing for these patients who are really at risk? We’ve been treating every single patient the same way and we have not been paying attention to the very different stages of injury.”

In an accompanying editorial, Prakriti Gaba, MD, a clinical fellow in medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, New York, wrote: “There is no doubt that the classification system proposed by the investigators is important and timely, as acute MI continues to account for substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide.”

Imaging and staging could be useful in guiding appropriate therapy, Bhatt said in an interview. “The authors’ hope, which I think is a very laudable one, is that more finely characterizing exactly what the extent of damage is and what the mechanism of damage is in a heart attack will make it possible to develop therapies that are particularly targeted to each of the stages,” he said.

“It is quite common to have the ability to do cardiac MRI at experienced cardiovascular centers, although this may not be true for smaller community hospitals,” Dr. Bhatt added. “But at least at larger hospitals, this will allow for much finer evaluation and assessment of exactly what is going on in that particular patient and how extensive the heart muscle damage is. Eventually, this will facilitate the development of therapies that are specifically targeted to treat each stage.”

Dr. Kumar is partly supported by a research grant from the Northern Ontario Academic Medicine Association. Dr. Dharmakumar was funded in part by grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dharmakumar has an ownership interest in Cardio-Theranostics. Dr. Bhatt has served on advisory boards for Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys. He is a member of the board of directors of or holds stock in Angiowave, Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, High Enroll, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft. He has worked as a consultant for Broadview Ventures, and Hims. He has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology, Arnold and Porter law firm, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Belvoir Publications, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group, Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute, HMP Global, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, K2P, Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD, MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME, Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute, Slack Publications, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, WebMD, and Wiley.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society has developed a four-stage classification of acute atherothrombotic myocardial infarction based on the severity of the injury to the myocardium.

Relying on more than 50 years of data on acute MI with reperfusion therapy, the society has identified the following four stages of progressively worsening myocardial tissue injury:

• Aborted MI (no or minimal myocardial necrosis).
• MI with significant cardiomyocyte necrosis but without microvascular injury.
• Cardiomyocyte necrosis and microvascular dysfunction leading to microvascular obstruction (that is, “no reflow”).
• Cardiomyocyte and microvascular necrosis leading to reperfusion hemorrhage.

The classification is described in an expert consensus statement that was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

The new classification will allow for better risk stratification and more appropriate treatment and provide refined endpoints for clinical trials and translational research, according to the authors.

Currently, all patients with acute MI receive the same treatment, even though they may have different levels of tissue injury severity, statement author Andreas Kumar, MD, chair of the writing group and associate professor of medicine at Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Sudbury, said in an interview.

“In some cases, treatment for a mild stage 1 acute MI may be deadly for someone with stage 4 hemorrhagic MI,” said Dr. Kumar.
 

Technological advances

The classification is based on decades of data. “The initial data were obtained with pathology studies in the 1970s. When cardiac MRI came around, around the year 2000, suddenly there was a noninvasive imaging method where we could investigate patients in vivo,” said Dr. Kumar. “We learned a lot about tissue changes in acute MI. And especially in the last 2 to 5 years, we have learned a lot about hemorrhagic MI. So, this then gave us enough knowledge to come up with this new classification.”

The idea of classifying acute MI came to Dr. Kumar and senior author Rohan Dharmakumar, PhD, executive director of the Krannert Cardiovascular Research Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, when both were at the University of Toronto.

“This work has been years in the making,” Dr. Dharmakumar said in an interview. “We’ve been thinking about this for a long time, but we needed to get substantial layers of evidence to support the classification. We had a feeling about these stages for a long time, but that feeling needed to be substantiated.”

In 2022, Dr. Dharmakumar and Dr. Kumar observed that damage to the heart from MI was not only a result of ischemia caused by a blocked artery, but also a result of bleeding in the myocardium after the artery had been opened. Their findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The author of an accompanying editorial lauded the investigators “for providing new, mechanistic insights into a difficult clinical problem that has an unmet therapeutic need.”

“Hemorrhagic MI is a very dangerous injury because hemorrhage itself causes a lot of problems,” said Dr. Kumar. “We reported that there is infarct expansion after reperfusion, so once you open up the vessel, the heart attack actually gets larger. We also showed that the remodeling of these hearts is worse. These patients take a second hit with hemorrhage occurring in the myocardium.”
 

Classification and staging

“The standard guideline therapy for somebody who comes into the hospital is to put in a stent, open the artery, have the patient stay in the hospital for 48-72 hours, and then be released home,” said Dr. Dharmukumar. “But here’s the problem. These two patients who are going back home have different levels of injury, yet they are taking the same medications. Even inside the hospital, we have heterogeneity in mortality risk. But we are not paying attention to one patient differently than the other, even though we should, because their injuries are very different.”

The CCS classification may provide endpoints and outcome measures beyond the commonly used clinical markers, which could lead to improved treatments to help patients recover from their cardiac events.

“We have this issue of rampant heart failure in acute MI survivors. We’ve gotten really good at saving patients from immediate death, but now we are just postponing some of the serious problems survivors are going to face, said Dr. Dharmukumar. “What are we doing for these patients who are really at risk? We’ve been treating every single patient the same way and we have not been paying attention to the very different stages of injury.”

In an accompanying editorial, Prakriti Gaba, MD, a clinical fellow in medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, New York, wrote: “There is no doubt that the classification system proposed by the investigators is important and timely, as acute MI continues to account for substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide.”

Imaging and staging could be useful in guiding appropriate therapy, Bhatt said in an interview. “The authors’ hope, which I think is a very laudable one, is that more finely characterizing exactly what the extent of damage is and what the mechanism of damage is in a heart attack will make it possible to develop therapies that are particularly targeted to each of the stages,” he said.

“It is quite common to have the ability to do cardiac MRI at experienced cardiovascular centers, although this may not be true for smaller community hospitals,” Dr. Bhatt added. “But at least at larger hospitals, this will allow for much finer evaluation and assessment of exactly what is going on in that particular patient and how extensive the heart muscle damage is. Eventually, this will facilitate the development of therapies that are specifically targeted to treat each stage.”

Dr. Kumar is partly supported by a research grant from the Northern Ontario Academic Medicine Association. Dr. Dharmakumar was funded in part by grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dharmakumar has an ownership interest in Cardio-Theranostics. Dr. Bhatt has served on advisory boards for Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys. He is a member of the board of directors of or holds stock in Angiowave, Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, High Enroll, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft. He has worked as a consultant for Broadview Ventures, and Hims. He has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology, Arnold and Porter law firm, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Belvoir Publications, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group, Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute, HMP Global, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, K2P, Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD, MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME, Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute, Slack Publications, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, WebMD, and Wiley.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society has developed a four-stage classification of acute atherothrombotic myocardial infarction based on the severity of the injury to the myocardium.

Relying on more than 50 years of data on acute MI with reperfusion therapy, the society has identified the following four stages of progressively worsening myocardial tissue injury:

• Aborted MI (no or minimal myocardial necrosis).
• MI with significant cardiomyocyte necrosis but without microvascular injury.
• Cardiomyocyte necrosis and microvascular dysfunction leading to microvascular obstruction (that is, “no reflow”).
• Cardiomyocyte and microvascular necrosis leading to reperfusion hemorrhage.

The classification is described in an expert consensus statement that was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

The new classification will allow for better risk stratification and more appropriate treatment and provide refined endpoints for clinical trials and translational research, according to the authors.

Currently, all patients with acute MI receive the same treatment, even though they may have different levels of tissue injury severity, statement author Andreas Kumar, MD, chair of the writing group and associate professor of medicine at Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Sudbury, said in an interview.

“In some cases, treatment for a mild stage 1 acute MI may be deadly for someone with stage 4 hemorrhagic MI,” said Dr. Kumar.
 

Technological advances

The classification is based on decades of data. “The initial data were obtained with pathology studies in the 1970s. When cardiac MRI came around, around the year 2000, suddenly there was a noninvasive imaging method where we could investigate patients in vivo,” said Dr. Kumar. “We learned a lot about tissue changes in acute MI. And especially in the last 2 to 5 years, we have learned a lot about hemorrhagic MI. So, this then gave us enough knowledge to come up with this new classification.”

The idea of classifying acute MI came to Dr. Kumar and senior author Rohan Dharmakumar, PhD, executive director of the Krannert Cardiovascular Research Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, when both were at the University of Toronto.

“This work has been years in the making,” Dr. Dharmakumar said in an interview. “We’ve been thinking about this for a long time, but we needed to get substantial layers of evidence to support the classification. We had a feeling about these stages for a long time, but that feeling needed to be substantiated.”

In 2022, Dr. Dharmakumar and Dr. Kumar observed that damage to the heart from MI was not only a result of ischemia caused by a blocked artery, but also a result of bleeding in the myocardium after the artery had been opened. Their findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The author of an accompanying editorial lauded the investigators “for providing new, mechanistic insights into a difficult clinical problem that has an unmet therapeutic need.”

“Hemorrhagic MI is a very dangerous injury because hemorrhage itself causes a lot of problems,” said Dr. Kumar. “We reported that there is infarct expansion after reperfusion, so once you open up the vessel, the heart attack actually gets larger. We also showed that the remodeling of these hearts is worse. These patients take a second hit with hemorrhage occurring in the myocardium.”
 

Classification and staging

“The standard guideline therapy for somebody who comes into the hospital is to put in a stent, open the artery, have the patient stay in the hospital for 48-72 hours, and then be released home,” said Dr. Dharmukumar. “But here’s the problem. These two patients who are going back home have different levels of injury, yet they are taking the same medications. Even inside the hospital, we have heterogeneity in mortality risk. But we are not paying attention to one patient differently than the other, even though we should, because their injuries are very different.”

The CCS classification may provide endpoints and outcome measures beyond the commonly used clinical markers, which could lead to improved treatments to help patients recover from their cardiac events.

“We have this issue of rampant heart failure in acute MI survivors. We’ve gotten really good at saving patients from immediate death, but now we are just postponing some of the serious problems survivors are going to face, said Dr. Dharmukumar. “What are we doing for these patients who are really at risk? We’ve been treating every single patient the same way and we have not been paying attention to the very different stages of injury.”

In an accompanying editorial, Prakriti Gaba, MD, a clinical fellow in medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, New York, wrote: “There is no doubt that the classification system proposed by the investigators is important and timely, as acute MI continues to account for substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide.”

Imaging and staging could be useful in guiding appropriate therapy, Bhatt said in an interview. “The authors’ hope, which I think is a very laudable one, is that more finely characterizing exactly what the extent of damage is and what the mechanism of damage is in a heart attack will make it possible to develop therapies that are particularly targeted to each of the stages,” he said.

“It is quite common to have the ability to do cardiac MRI at experienced cardiovascular centers, although this may not be true for smaller community hospitals,” Dr. Bhatt added. “But at least at larger hospitals, this will allow for much finer evaluation and assessment of exactly what is going on in that particular patient and how extensive the heart muscle damage is. Eventually, this will facilitate the development of therapies that are specifically targeted to treat each stage.”

Dr. Kumar is partly supported by a research grant from the Northern Ontario Academic Medicine Association. Dr. Dharmakumar was funded in part by grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dharmakumar has an ownership interest in Cardio-Theranostics. Dr. Bhatt has served on advisory boards for Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys. He is a member of the board of directors of or holds stock in Angiowave, Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, High Enroll, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft. He has worked as a consultant for Broadview Ventures, and Hims. He has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology, Arnold and Porter law firm, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Belvoir Publications, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group, Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute, HMP Global, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, K2P, Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD, MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME, Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute, Slack Publications, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, WebMD, and Wiley.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, but this risk is heightened significantly in the presence of obesity, according to new research.

In a population-based cohort study that included more than 1.2 million hospital live births, PCOS was associated with a 5% increase in risk for gestational diabetes. Almost 90% of this association was mediated by obesity.

“Women with PCOS are at higher risk, but it’s only 5% higher than the general population. However, that risk rises substantially with obesity,” senior author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, clinician-scientist and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Our study highlights the need for counseling our patients about the importance of weight optimization, ideally starting with lifestyle changes like diet and exercise.”The findings were published  in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.
 

Major mediator

The estimated prevalence of PCOS is 8%-13%, and affected patients often present with anovulation, hyperandrogenism, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and infertility. Prepregnancy insulin resistance is common among women with PCOS and may play a major part in the pathogenesis of gestational diabetes. In addition, PCOS is often accompanied by excess weight gain; about 60% of women with PCOS are overweight or obese.

Previous research has shown that PCOS is a risk factor for gestational diabetes independent of obesity, while other research has shown that obesity has an important effect on this risk.

For the current study, the researchers used causal mediation analysis to elucidate more clearly the effect of obesity on the development of gestational diabetes among patients with PCOS. No previous study has used causal mediation analysis to examine this relationship.

Using data from linked universal health databases in Ontario, the researchers analyzed data on 1,268,901 births between 2006 and 2018. Of these births, 386,748 were associated with maternal PCOS.

The rate of gestational diabetes was higher among women with PCOS (60.2 per 1000 births), compared with women without PCOS (48.6 per 1,000 births). The finding resulted in an adjusted relative risk of 1.05. Obesity mediated 89.7% of this association.

“We hope that these data will inform preconception counseling and gestational diabetes screening in pregnant women with PCOS,” said Dr. Velez. “We have the data now to counsel our patients on the importance of weight management before pregnancy. But we need more resources, such as specialized clinics, to help these patients cope with managing their weight. We can tell our patients to work on their weight management, but they need much more support from the health care system.”
 

Results ‘not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Francine Hippolyte, MD, vice chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Katz Women’s Hospital, New Hyde Park, N.Y., said that the results are “not at all surprising.” Dr. Hippolyte was not involved in the research.

“We do know that PCOS is and should be treated as a metabolic syndrome. It’s a lot more than just infertility or changes or abnormalities with one’s menstrual cycle. It impacts a woman’s risk for diabetes, prediabetes, and abnormal lipid profile, regardless of whether or not she is obese,” said Dr. Hippolyte.

She agrees with the need for specialized clinics to help such vulnerable patients manage their weight.

“It would be great if insurances would cover things like nutritional counseling or have nutritionists on their roster so that patients can easily access that service. Many patients want to do right, especially preconceptually, but it is difficult without having access to resources. Unfortunately, as clinicians, we’re not as well versed in nutrition as we would like to be or should be, so we need a multidisciplinary approach. We need nutrition and weight loss clinics and proper services to really help these patients.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and ICES. Dr. Velez and Dr. Hippolyte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, but this risk is heightened significantly in the presence of obesity, according to new research.

In a population-based cohort study that included more than 1.2 million hospital live births, PCOS was associated with a 5% increase in risk for gestational diabetes. Almost 90% of this association was mediated by obesity.

“Women with PCOS are at higher risk, but it’s only 5% higher than the general population. However, that risk rises substantially with obesity,” senior author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, clinician-scientist and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Our study highlights the need for counseling our patients about the importance of weight optimization, ideally starting with lifestyle changes like diet and exercise.”The findings were published  in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.
 

Major mediator

The estimated prevalence of PCOS is 8%-13%, and affected patients often present with anovulation, hyperandrogenism, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and infertility. Prepregnancy insulin resistance is common among women with PCOS and may play a major part in the pathogenesis of gestational diabetes. In addition, PCOS is often accompanied by excess weight gain; about 60% of women with PCOS are overweight or obese.

Previous research has shown that PCOS is a risk factor for gestational diabetes independent of obesity, while other research has shown that obesity has an important effect on this risk.

For the current study, the researchers used causal mediation analysis to elucidate more clearly the effect of obesity on the development of gestational diabetes among patients with PCOS. No previous study has used causal mediation analysis to examine this relationship.

Using data from linked universal health databases in Ontario, the researchers analyzed data on 1,268,901 births between 2006 and 2018. Of these births, 386,748 were associated with maternal PCOS.

The rate of gestational diabetes was higher among women with PCOS (60.2 per 1000 births), compared with women without PCOS (48.6 per 1,000 births). The finding resulted in an adjusted relative risk of 1.05. Obesity mediated 89.7% of this association.

“We hope that these data will inform preconception counseling and gestational diabetes screening in pregnant women with PCOS,” said Dr. Velez. “We have the data now to counsel our patients on the importance of weight management before pregnancy. But we need more resources, such as specialized clinics, to help these patients cope with managing their weight. We can tell our patients to work on their weight management, but they need much more support from the health care system.”
 

Results ‘not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Francine Hippolyte, MD, vice chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Katz Women’s Hospital, New Hyde Park, N.Y., said that the results are “not at all surprising.” Dr. Hippolyte was not involved in the research.

“We do know that PCOS is and should be treated as a metabolic syndrome. It’s a lot more than just infertility or changes or abnormalities with one’s menstrual cycle. It impacts a woman’s risk for diabetes, prediabetes, and abnormal lipid profile, regardless of whether or not she is obese,” said Dr. Hippolyte.

She agrees with the need for specialized clinics to help such vulnerable patients manage their weight.

“It would be great if insurances would cover things like nutritional counseling or have nutritionists on their roster so that patients can easily access that service. Many patients want to do right, especially preconceptually, but it is difficult without having access to resources. Unfortunately, as clinicians, we’re not as well versed in nutrition as we would like to be or should be, so we need a multidisciplinary approach. We need nutrition and weight loss clinics and proper services to really help these patients.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and ICES. Dr. Velez and Dr. Hippolyte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, but this risk is heightened significantly in the presence of obesity, according to new research.

In a population-based cohort study that included more than 1.2 million hospital live births, PCOS was associated with a 5% increase in risk for gestational diabetes. Almost 90% of this association was mediated by obesity.

“Women with PCOS are at higher risk, but it’s only 5% higher than the general population. However, that risk rises substantially with obesity,” senior author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, clinician-scientist and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Our study highlights the need for counseling our patients about the importance of weight optimization, ideally starting with lifestyle changes like diet and exercise.”The findings were published  in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.
 

Major mediator

The estimated prevalence of PCOS is 8%-13%, and affected patients often present with anovulation, hyperandrogenism, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and infertility. Prepregnancy insulin resistance is common among women with PCOS and may play a major part in the pathogenesis of gestational diabetes. In addition, PCOS is often accompanied by excess weight gain; about 60% of women with PCOS are overweight or obese.

Previous research has shown that PCOS is a risk factor for gestational diabetes independent of obesity, while other research has shown that obesity has an important effect on this risk.

For the current study, the researchers used causal mediation analysis to elucidate more clearly the effect of obesity on the development of gestational diabetes among patients with PCOS. No previous study has used causal mediation analysis to examine this relationship.

Using data from linked universal health databases in Ontario, the researchers analyzed data on 1,268,901 births between 2006 and 2018. Of these births, 386,748 were associated with maternal PCOS.

The rate of gestational diabetes was higher among women with PCOS (60.2 per 1000 births), compared with women without PCOS (48.6 per 1,000 births). The finding resulted in an adjusted relative risk of 1.05. Obesity mediated 89.7% of this association.

“We hope that these data will inform preconception counseling and gestational diabetes screening in pregnant women with PCOS,” said Dr. Velez. “We have the data now to counsel our patients on the importance of weight management before pregnancy. But we need more resources, such as specialized clinics, to help these patients cope with managing their weight. We can tell our patients to work on their weight management, but they need much more support from the health care system.”
 

Results ‘not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Francine Hippolyte, MD, vice chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Katz Women’s Hospital, New Hyde Park, N.Y., said that the results are “not at all surprising.” Dr. Hippolyte was not involved in the research.

“We do know that PCOS is and should be treated as a metabolic syndrome. It’s a lot more than just infertility or changes or abnormalities with one’s menstrual cycle. It impacts a woman’s risk for diabetes, prediabetes, and abnormal lipid profile, regardless of whether or not she is obese,” said Dr. Hippolyte.

She agrees with the need for specialized clinics to help such vulnerable patients manage their weight.

“It would be great if insurances would cover things like nutritional counseling or have nutritionists on their roster so that patients can easily access that service. Many patients want to do right, especially preconceptually, but it is difficult without having access to resources. Unfortunately, as clinicians, we’re not as well versed in nutrition as we would like to be or should be, so we need a multidisciplinary approach. We need nutrition and weight loss clinics and proper services to really help these patients.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and ICES. Dr. Velez and Dr. Hippolyte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency department visits and hospital admissions for eating disorders have increased significantly among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new research.

In a repeated cross-sectional study that examined population-based data from January 2017 through August 2022, ED visits increased by 121% above expected levels, and hospital admissions increased by 54% above expected among patients aged 10-17 years during the pandemic.

“We are hoping this study continues to heighten awareness of the importance of eating disorders, and also to bolster support for eating disorder programs so that we can adequately care for patients and address the increasing demand for treatment and services,” lead author Alene Toulany, MD, adolescent medicine specialist and researcher at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

‘A pressing concern’

The researchers used linked health administrative databases that included all patients in Ontario who were eligible for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, which is publicly funded. They compared observed and expected rates of ED visits and hospitalizations for eating disorders between a prepandemic period (Jan. 1, 2017, to Feb. 29, 2020) and a pandemic period (Mar. 1, 2020, to Aug. 31, 2022). The researchers examined the following four age categories: adolescents (aged 10-17 years), young adults (aged 18-26 years), adults (aged 27-40 years), and older adults (aged 41-105 years).

Among adolescents, the observed rate of ED visits during the 30 pandemic months studied was 7.38 per 100,000 population, compared with 3.33 per 100,000 before the pandemic (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.21).

The rate of ED visits among young adults increased by 13% above the expected rate. It reached 2.79 per 100,000, compared with 2.46 per 100,000 in the prepandemic period (IRR, 1.13).

Among older adults, ED visits increased from 0.11 per 100,000 in the prepandemic period to 0.14 per 100,000 in the pandemic period (IRR, 1.15). The rate of ED visits among adults remained approximately the same.

The rate of hospital admissions among adolescents increased by 54% above the expected rate during the pandemic. The observed rate of hospital admissions before the pandemic was 5.74 per 100,000, vs. 8.82 per 100,000 during the pandemic (IRR, 1.54). Hospital admissions remained stable or decreased for the other age groups.

“Eating disorders have increased globally in children and adolescents during COVID,” said Dr. Toulany. “There are a number of risk factors contributing to this pandemic rise, including isolation, more time on social media, decreased access to care (as many in-person services were not available due to the pandemic), as well as fear of getting infected. All of these could contribute to an increased risk of developing an eating disorder or of making an existing one worse.”

Regardless of the cause, more investment in eating disorders research and eating disorder programs for adolescents and adults is needed, she said.

“The pandemic served as a catalyst, because it started to shed light on the prevalence of eating disorders, especially in young people. But it’s very important that we recognize that this has been a long-standing issue and a pressing concern that has been consistently overlooked and underfunded,” said Dr. Toulany.
 

Surging eating disorders

Commenting on the findings, Victor Fornari, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital/Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., said, “Our experience in the United States parallels what is described in this Canadian paper. This was a surge of eating disorders the likes of which I had not experienced in my career.” Dr. Fornari did not participate in the current study.

“I’ve been here for over 40 years, and the average number of our inpatients in our eating disorder program has been three to five and about a dozen patients in our day clinic at any one time. But in the spring of 2020, we surged to 20 inpatients and over 20 day patients,” Dr. Fornari said.

“We can speculate as to the reasons for this,” he continued. “Kids were isolated. School was closed. They spent more time on social media and the Internet. Their sports activities were curtailed. There was anxiety because the guidance that we were all offered to prevent contagion was increasing people’s anxiety about safety and danger. So, I think we saw dramatic rises in eating disorders in the same way we saw dramatic rises in anxiety and depression in adolescents, as well.”

Dr. Fornari cited social media as an important contributing factor to eating disorders, especially among vulnerable teenagers. “Many of these vulnerable kids are looking at pictures of people who are very thin and comparing themselves, feeling inadequate, feeling sad. Social media is one of the reasons why the rates of psychopathology amongst teens has skyrocketed in the last decade. The surgeon general recently said we should delay access to social media until age 16 because the younger kids are impressionable and vulnerable. I think there is wisdom there, but it is very hard to actually put into practice.”
 

Worsening mental health

“I thought this was very relevant research and an important contribution to our understanding of eating disorders during pandemic times,” said Simon Sherry, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “It also dovetails with my own experience as a practitioner.” Dr. Sherry was not involved in the research.

The pandemic has been difficult for people with disordered eating for many reasons, Dr. Sherry said. “There was a massive disruption or ‘loss of normal’ around food. Restaurants closed, grocery shopping was disrupted, scarcity of food occurred, hoarding of food occurred. That meant that eating was difficult for all of us, but especially for individuals who were rigid and controlling around the consumption of food. In this COVID era, you would need flexibility and acceptance around eating, but if you had a narrow range of preferred foods and preferred shopping locations, no doubt the pandemic made this a lot worse.”

Certain forms of disordered eating would be much more likely during the pandemic, Dr. Sherry noted. “For example, binge eating is often triggered by psychological, social, and environmental events,” and those triggers were abundant at the beginning of the pandemic. Boredom, anxiety, depression, stress, loneliness, confinement, and isolation are among the triggers. “COVID-19-related stress was and is very fertile ground for the growth of emotional eating, binge eating, or turning to food to cope. Eating disorders tend to fester amid silence and isolation and inactivity, and that was very much our experience during the lockdown phase of the pandemic,” he said.

Dr. Sherry agrees with the need for more funding for eating disorders research. “We know in Canada that eating disorders are a very important and deadly issue that is chronically underfunded. We are not funding disordered eating in proportion to its prevalence or in proportion to the amount of harm and destruction it creates for individuals, their family members, and our society at large. The authors are absolutely correct to advocate for care in proportion to the prevalence and the damage associated with eating disorders,” he said.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Dr. Toulany, Dr. Fornari, and Dr. Sherry reported no relevant financial relationships. One study author reported receiving personal fees from the BMJ Group’s Archives of Diseases in Childhood and grants from CIHR, the Ontario Ministry of Health, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and the Hospital for Sick Children. A second author reported funding from CIHR.

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

Emergency department visits and hospital admissions for eating disorders have increased significantly among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new research.

In a repeated cross-sectional study that examined population-based data from January 2017 through August 2022, ED visits increased by 121% above expected levels, and hospital admissions increased by 54% above expected among patients aged 10-17 years during the pandemic.

“We are hoping this study continues to heighten awareness of the importance of eating disorders, and also to bolster support for eating disorder programs so that we can adequately care for patients and address the increasing demand for treatment and services,” lead author Alene Toulany, MD, adolescent medicine specialist and researcher at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

‘A pressing concern’

The researchers used linked health administrative databases that included all patients in Ontario who were eligible for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, which is publicly funded. They compared observed and expected rates of ED visits and hospitalizations for eating disorders between a prepandemic period (Jan. 1, 2017, to Feb. 29, 2020) and a pandemic period (Mar. 1, 2020, to Aug. 31, 2022). The researchers examined the following four age categories: adolescents (aged 10-17 years), young adults (aged 18-26 years), adults (aged 27-40 years), and older adults (aged 41-105 years).

Among adolescents, the observed rate of ED visits during the 30 pandemic months studied was 7.38 per 100,000 population, compared with 3.33 per 100,000 before the pandemic (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.21).

The rate of ED visits among young adults increased by 13% above the expected rate. It reached 2.79 per 100,000, compared with 2.46 per 100,000 in the prepandemic period (IRR, 1.13).

Among older adults, ED visits increased from 0.11 per 100,000 in the prepandemic period to 0.14 per 100,000 in the pandemic period (IRR, 1.15). The rate of ED visits among adults remained approximately the same.

The rate of hospital admissions among adolescents increased by 54% above the expected rate during the pandemic. The observed rate of hospital admissions before the pandemic was 5.74 per 100,000, vs. 8.82 per 100,000 during the pandemic (IRR, 1.54). Hospital admissions remained stable or decreased for the other age groups.

“Eating disorders have increased globally in children and adolescents during COVID,” said Dr. Toulany. “There are a number of risk factors contributing to this pandemic rise, including isolation, more time on social media, decreased access to care (as many in-person services were not available due to the pandemic), as well as fear of getting infected. All of these could contribute to an increased risk of developing an eating disorder or of making an existing one worse.”

Regardless of the cause, more investment in eating disorders research and eating disorder programs for adolescents and adults is needed, she said.

“The pandemic served as a catalyst, because it started to shed light on the prevalence of eating disorders, especially in young people. But it’s very important that we recognize that this has been a long-standing issue and a pressing concern that has been consistently overlooked and underfunded,” said Dr. Toulany.
 

Surging eating disorders

Commenting on the findings, Victor Fornari, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital/Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., said, “Our experience in the United States parallels what is described in this Canadian paper. This was a surge of eating disorders the likes of which I had not experienced in my career.” Dr. Fornari did not participate in the current study.

“I’ve been here for over 40 years, and the average number of our inpatients in our eating disorder program has been three to five and about a dozen patients in our day clinic at any one time. But in the spring of 2020, we surged to 20 inpatients and over 20 day patients,” Dr. Fornari said.

“We can speculate as to the reasons for this,” he continued. “Kids were isolated. School was closed. They spent more time on social media and the Internet. Their sports activities were curtailed. There was anxiety because the guidance that we were all offered to prevent contagion was increasing people’s anxiety about safety and danger. So, I think we saw dramatic rises in eating disorders in the same way we saw dramatic rises in anxiety and depression in adolescents, as well.”

Dr. Fornari cited social media as an important contributing factor to eating disorders, especially among vulnerable teenagers. “Many of these vulnerable kids are looking at pictures of people who are very thin and comparing themselves, feeling inadequate, feeling sad. Social media is one of the reasons why the rates of psychopathology amongst teens has skyrocketed in the last decade. The surgeon general recently said we should delay access to social media until age 16 because the younger kids are impressionable and vulnerable. I think there is wisdom there, but it is very hard to actually put into practice.”
 

Worsening mental health

“I thought this was very relevant research and an important contribution to our understanding of eating disorders during pandemic times,” said Simon Sherry, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “It also dovetails with my own experience as a practitioner.” Dr. Sherry was not involved in the research.

The pandemic has been difficult for people with disordered eating for many reasons, Dr. Sherry said. “There was a massive disruption or ‘loss of normal’ around food. Restaurants closed, grocery shopping was disrupted, scarcity of food occurred, hoarding of food occurred. That meant that eating was difficult for all of us, but especially for individuals who were rigid and controlling around the consumption of food. In this COVID era, you would need flexibility and acceptance around eating, but if you had a narrow range of preferred foods and preferred shopping locations, no doubt the pandemic made this a lot worse.”

Certain forms of disordered eating would be much more likely during the pandemic, Dr. Sherry noted. “For example, binge eating is often triggered by psychological, social, and environmental events,” and those triggers were abundant at the beginning of the pandemic. Boredom, anxiety, depression, stress, loneliness, confinement, and isolation are among the triggers. “COVID-19-related stress was and is very fertile ground for the growth of emotional eating, binge eating, or turning to food to cope. Eating disorders tend to fester amid silence and isolation and inactivity, and that was very much our experience during the lockdown phase of the pandemic,” he said.

Dr. Sherry agrees with the need for more funding for eating disorders research. “We know in Canada that eating disorders are a very important and deadly issue that is chronically underfunded. We are not funding disordered eating in proportion to its prevalence or in proportion to the amount of harm and destruction it creates for individuals, their family members, and our society at large. The authors are absolutely correct to advocate for care in proportion to the prevalence and the damage associated with eating disorders,” he said.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Dr. Toulany, Dr. Fornari, and Dr. Sherry reported no relevant financial relationships. One study author reported receiving personal fees from the BMJ Group’s Archives of Diseases in Childhood and grants from CIHR, the Ontario Ministry of Health, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and the Hospital for Sick Children. A second author reported funding from CIHR.

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

Emergency department visits and hospital admissions for eating disorders have increased significantly among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new research.

In a repeated cross-sectional study that examined population-based data from January 2017 through August 2022, ED visits increased by 121% above expected levels, and hospital admissions increased by 54% above expected among patients aged 10-17 years during the pandemic.

“We are hoping this study continues to heighten awareness of the importance of eating disorders, and also to bolster support for eating disorder programs so that we can adequately care for patients and address the increasing demand for treatment and services,” lead author Alene Toulany, MD, adolescent medicine specialist and researcher at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

‘A pressing concern’

The researchers used linked health administrative databases that included all patients in Ontario who were eligible for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, which is publicly funded. They compared observed and expected rates of ED visits and hospitalizations for eating disorders between a prepandemic period (Jan. 1, 2017, to Feb. 29, 2020) and a pandemic period (Mar. 1, 2020, to Aug. 31, 2022). The researchers examined the following four age categories: adolescents (aged 10-17 years), young adults (aged 18-26 years), adults (aged 27-40 years), and older adults (aged 41-105 years).

Among adolescents, the observed rate of ED visits during the 30 pandemic months studied was 7.38 per 100,000 population, compared with 3.33 per 100,000 before the pandemic (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.21).

The rate of ED visits among young adults increased by 13% above the expected rate. It reached 2.79 per 100,000, compared with 2.46 per 100,000 in the prepandemic period (IRR, 1.13).

Among older adults, ED visits increased from 0.11 per 100,000 in the prepandemic period to 0.14 per 100,000 in the pandemic period (IRR, 1.15). The rate of ED visits among adults remained approximately the same.

The rate of hospital admissions among adolescents increased by 54% above the expected rate during the pandemic. The observed rate of hospital admissions before the pandemic was 5.74 per 100,000, vs. 8.82 per 100,000 during the pandemic (IRR, 1.54). Hospital admissions remained stable or decreased for the other age groups.

“Eating disorders have increased globally in children and adolescents during COVID,” said Dr. Toulany. “There are a number of risk factors contributing to this pandemic rise, including isolation, more time on social media, decreased access to care (as many in-person services were not available due to the pandemic), as well as fear of getting infected. All of these could contribute to an increased risk of developing an eating disorder or of making an existing one worse.”

Regardless of the cause, more investment in eating disorders research and eating disorder programs for adolescents and adults is needed, she said.

“The pandemic served as a catalyst, because it started to shed light on the prevalence of eating disorders, especially in young people. But it’s very important that we recognize that this has been a long-standing issue and a pressing concern that has been consistently overlooked and underfunded,” said Dr. Toulany.
 

Surging eating disorders

Commenting on the findings, Victor Fornari, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital/Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., said, “Our experience in the United States parallels what is described in this Canadian paper. This was a surge of eating disorders the likes of which I had not experienced in my career.” Dr. Fornari did not participate in the current study.

“I’ve been here for over 40 years, and the average number of our inpatients in our eating disorder program has been three to five and about a dozen patients in our day clinic at any one time. But in the spring of 2020, we surged to 20 inpatients and over 20 day patients,” Dr. Fornari said.

“We can speculate as to the reasons for this,” he continued. “Kids were isolated. School was closed. They spent more time on social media and the Internet. Their sports activities were curtailed. There was anxiety because the guidance that we were all offered to prevent contagion was increasing people’s anxiety about safety and danger. So, I think we saw dramatic rises in eating disorders in the same way we saw dramatic rises in anxiety and depression in adolescents, as well.”

Dr. Fornari cited social media as an important contributing factor to eating disorders, especially among vulnerable teenagers. “Many of these vulnerable kids are looking at pictures of people who are very thin and comparing themselves, feeling inadequate, feeling sad. Social media is one of the reasons why the rates of psychopathology amongst teens has skyrocketed in the last decade. The surgeon general recently said we should delay access to social media until age 16 because the younger kids are impressionable and vulnerable. I think there is wisdom there, but it is very hard to actually put into practice.”
 

Worsening mental health

“I thought this was very relevant research and an important contribution to our understanding of eating disorders during pandemic times,” said Simon Sherry, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “It also dovetails with my own experience as a practitioner.” Dr. Sherry was not involved in the research.

The pandemic has been difficult for people with disordered eating for many reasons, Dr. Sherry said. “There was a massive disruption or ‘loss of normal’ around food. Restaurants closed, grocery shopping was disrupted, scarcity of food occurred, hoarding of food occurred. That meant that eating was difficult for all of us, but especially for individuals who were rigid and controlling around the consumption of food. In this COVID era, you would need flexibility and acceptance around eating, but if you had a narrow range of preferred foods and preferred shopping locations, no doubt the pandemic made this a lot worse.”

Certain forms of disordered eating would be much more likely during the pandemic, Dr. Sherry noted. “For example, binge eating is often triggered by psychological, social, and environmental events,” and those triggers were abundant at the beginning of the pandemic. Boredom, anxiety, depression, stress, loneliness, confinement, and isolation are among the triggers. “COVID-19-related stress was and is very fertile ground for the growth of emotional eating, binge eating, or turning to food to cope. Eating disorders tend to fester amid silence and isolation and inactivity, and that was very much our experience during the lockdown phase of the pandemic,” he said.

Dr. Sherry agrees with the need for more funding for eating disorders research. “We know in Canada that eating disorders are a very important and deadly issue that is chronically underfunded. We are not funding disordered eating in proportion to its prevalence or in proportion to the amount of harm and destruction it creates for individuals, their family members, and our society at large. The authors are absolutely correct to advocate for care in proportion to the prevalence and the damage associated with eating disorders,” he said.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Dr. Toulany, Dr. Fornari, and Dr. Sherry reported no relevant financial relationships. One study author reported receiving personal fees from the BMJ Group’s Archives of Diseases in Childhood and grants from CIHR, the Ontario Ministry of Health, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and the Hospital for Sick Children. A second author reported funding from CIHR.

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

Having multiple primary care clinicians before surgery increases the risk for a negative outcome, including visits to the emergency department, after hip or knee replacement surgery, according to new research.

In a retrospective cohort study that included more than 45,000 surgeries, the likelihood of visiting the ED within 90 days was 40% lower for patients who had unbroken continuity of primary care before knee replacement and 35% lower for patients who had unbroken continuity of primary care before hip replacement, compared with those who had several primary care clinicians. Continuity of primary care was defined as having one primary care clinician in the 3 years before surgery.

The findings highlight the critical need for improved access to primary care in Canada, lead author Lynn Lethbridge, from the department of surgery at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., said in an interview. “The primary care providers have been aware that continuity of care matters, but I’m not sure that surgeons are,” she said. “If they become aware, the surgical team could develop strategies to help prevent somebody from coming back to the ED by discussing primary care provisions during the presurgical consultation.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Surgery.
 

Discontinuity a disadvantage

“There’s been a lot of news for the last few years here in Nova Scotia and all across Canada on the difficulties of getting and keeping a regular primary care provider, and there has also been a lot of coverage about overcrowded emergency departments and efforts to reduce the need for emergency care,” said Ms. Lethbridge. “The number of joint replacement procedures is expected to rise in the coming years, and we wanted to know if there was an association between not having a regular primary care provider and the chance of returning to the ED after joint replacement, so we undertook the study.”

The researchers accessed data on all patients in Nova Scotia who underwent nonemergency hip and knee procedures from 2005 to 2020. The study outcome was any ED visit within 90 days after discharge.

The investigators looked at 3 years of primary care history before surgery and calculated the Modified Modified Continuity Index (MMCI), which represents the number of primary care clinicians adjusted for the total number of visits, for each patient. The maximum value of the MMCI is 1, meaning that the patient saw the same doctor throughout the period examined. Lower scores mean that the patient saw different health care providers during that period.

Of the patients who underwent the 28,574 knee procedures included in the analysis, 13.9% had an ED visit within 90 days. Of the patients who underwent the 16,767 hip procedures included in the analysis, 13.5% had an ED visit within 90 days.

For patients undergoing knee procedures, the mean MMCI was 0.868, and 10.7% of patients had a perfect MMCI score of 1. For patients undergoing hip replacement, the mean MMCI was 0.864, and 13.5% had an MMCI of 1.

After controlling for confounders such as age, comorbidities, distance to hospital, and neighborhood income, the researchers found a statistically significant negative association between greater continuity of care and the probability of an ED visit.

A knee replacement patient with an MMCI score of 1 had a 90-day ED visit probability of 12.8%. A patient who had visited multiple primary care clinicians before surgery had a probability of 15.2%.
 

‘Quarterbacks’ needed

Commenting on the findings, Harman Chaudhry, MD, MSc, an orthopedic surgeon at Sunnybrook Health Science Center, Toronto, said: “Their main message quantified what many of us in health care already sense is true: That patients do benefit when there’s somebody, specifically a primary care provider, to quarterback their health care, look over the entirety of their care, and really know the patient.

“These are elective procedures, and joint replacement is a very siloed and episodic instance of care where we, as surgeons in hospitals, think we can control a lot of the presurgical and postsurgical care and really optimize patients,” he added. “But it’s clear that despite that, patients are still benefiting from having somebody who has known them for a longer period of time.”

The longstanding shortage of family physicians in Canada has worsened, especially since the beginning of the pandemic. The shortage means that many people are denied access to a family doctor of their own, said Dr. Chaudhry, who was not involved in the research.

“In Canada, there’s a large chunk of the population that is having difficulty accessing a primary care physician, so those patients have created their own primary care experience, taking advantage of walk-in clinics, perhaps urgent care centers, EDs when they need emergency care, and locum [tenens] physicians that may come into the community once in a while. And so, they have created their own primary care experience, but there is not a single person or single medical home where they’ve been seen for a period of years,” he said.

“Many of the patients in this study who were in the ED had nobody that the surgeon could communicate with or send his notes to,” Dr. Chaudhry concluded.

No source of funding for this study was reported. Ms. Lethbridge and Dr. Chaudhry reported no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor received travel support from Stryker and DePuy Synthes, has stock or stock options in Stryker, and participated in a data safety monitoring board for Hip Innovation Technology.

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

Having multiple primary care clinicians before surgery increases the risk for a negative outcome, including visits to the emergency department, after hip or knee replacement surgery, according to new research.

In a retrospective cohort study that included more than 45,000 surgeries, the likelihood of visiting the ED within 90 days was 40% lower for patients who had unbroken continuity of primary care before knee replacement and 35% lower for patients who had unbroken continuity of primary care before hip replacement, compared with those who had several primary care clinicians. Continuity of primary care was defined as having one primary care clinician in the 3 years before surgery.

The findings highlight the critical need for improved access to primary care in Canada, lead author Lynn Lethbridge, from the department of surgery at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., said in an interview. “The primary care providers have been aware that continuity of care matters, but I’m not sure that surgeons are,” she said. “If they become aware, the surgical team could develop strategies to help prevent somebody from coming back to the ED by discussing primary care provisions during the presurgical consultation.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Surgery.
 

Discontinuity a disadvantage

“There’s been a lot of news for the last few years here in Nova Scotia and all across Canada on the difficulties of getting and keeping a regular primary care provider, and there has also been a lot of coverage about overcrowded emergency departments and efforts to reduce the need for emergency care,” said Ms. Lethbridge. “The number of joint replacement procedures is expected to rise in the coming years, and we wanted to know if there was an association between not having a regular primary care provider and the chance of returning to the ED after joint replacement, so we undertook the study.”

The researchers accessed data on all patients in Nova Scotia who underwent nonemergency hip and knee procedures from 2005 to 2020. The study outcome was any ED visit within 90 days after discharge.

The investigators looked at 3 years of primary care history before surgery and calculated the Modified Modified Continuity Index (MMCI), which represents the number of primary care clinicians adjusted for the total number of visits, for each patient. The maximum value of the MMCI is 1, meaning that the patient saw the same doctor throughout the period examined. Lower scores mean that the patient saw different health care providers during that period.

Of the patients who underwent the 28,574 knee procedures included in the analysis, 13.9% had an ED visit within 90 days. Of the patients who underwent the 16,767 hip procedures included in the analysis, 13.5% had an ED visit within 90 days.

For patients undergoing knee procedures, the mean MMCI was 0.868, and 10.7% of patients had a perfect MMCI score of 1. For patients undergoing hip replacement, the mean MMCI was 0.864, and 13.5% had an MMCI of 1.

After controlling for confounders such as age, comorbidities, distance to hospital, and neighborhood income, the researchers found a statistically significant negative association between greater continuity of care and the probability of an ED visit.

A knee replacement patient with an MMCI score of 1 had a 90-day ED visit probability of 12.8%. A patient who had visited multiple primary care clinicians before surgery had a probability of 15.2%.
 

‘Quarterbacks’ needed

Commenting on the findings, Harman Chaudhry, MD, MSc, an orthopedic surgeon at Sunnybrook Health Science Center, Toronto, said: “Their main message quantified what many of us in health care already sense is true: That patients do benefit when there’s somebody, specifically a primary care provider, to quarterback their health care, look over the entirety of their care, and really know the patient.

“These are elective procedures, and joint replacement is a very siloed and episodic instance of care where we, as surgeons in hospitals, think we can control a lot of the presurgical and postsurgical care and really optimize patients,” he added. “But it’s clear that despite that, patients are still benefiting from having somebody who has known them for a longer period of time.”

The longstanding shortage of family physicians in Canada has worsened, especially since the beginning of the pandemic. The shortage means that many people are denied access to a family doctor of their own, said Dr. Chaudhry, who was not involved in the research.

“In Canada, there’s a large chunk of the population that is having difficulty accessing a primary care physician, so those patients have created their own primary care experience, taking advantage of walk-in clinics, perhaps urgent care centers, EDs when they need emergency care, and locum [tenens] physicians that may come into the community once in a while. And so, they have created their own primary care experience, but there is not a single person or single medical home where they’ve been seen for a period of years,” he said.

“Many of the patients in this study who were in the ED had nobody that the surgeon could communicate with or send his notes to,” Dr. Chaudhry concluded.

No source of funding for this study was reported. Ms. Lethbridge and Dr. Chaudhry reported no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor received travel support from Stryker and DePuy Synthes, has stock or stock options in Stryker, and participated in a data safety monitoring board for Hip Innovation Technology.

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

Having multiple primary care clinicians before surgery increases the risk for a negative outcome, including visits to the emergency department, after hip or knee replacement surgery, according to new research.

In a retrospective cohort study that included more than 45,000 surgeries, the likelihood of visiting the ED within 90 days was 40% lower for patients who had unbroken continuity of primary care before knee replacement and 35% lower for patients who had unbroken continuity of primary care before hip replacement, compared with those who had several primary care clinicians. Continuity of primary care was defined as having one primary care clinician in the 3 years before surgery.

The findings highlight the critical need for improved access to primary care in Canada, lead author Lynn Lethbridge, from the department of surgery at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., said in an interview. “The primary care providers have been aware that continuity of care matters, but I’m not sure that surgeons are,” she said. “If they become aware, the surgical team could develop strategies to help prevent somebody from coming back to the ED by discussing primary care provisions during the presurgical consultation.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Surgery.
 

Discontinuity a disadvantage

“There’s been a lot of news for the last few years here in Nova Scotia and all across Canada on the difficulties of getting and keeping a regular primary care provider, and there has also been a lot of coverage about overcrowded emergency departments and efforts to reduce the need for emergency care,” said Ms. Lethbridge. “The number of joint replacement procedures is expected to rise in the coming years, and we wanted to know if there was an association between not having a regular primary care provider and the chance of returning to the ED after joint replacement, so we undertook the study.”

The researchers accessed data on all patients in Nova Scotia who underwent nonemergency hip and knee procedures from 2005 to 2020. The study outcome was any ED visit within 90 days after discharge.

The investigators looked at 3 years of primary care history before surgery and calculated the Modified Modified Continuity Index (MMCI), which represents the number of primary care clinicians adjusted for the total number of visits, for each patient. The maximum value of the MMCI is 1, meaning that the patient saw the same doctor throughout the period examined. Lower scores mean that the patient saw different health care providers during that period.

Of the patients who underwent the 28,574 knee procedures included in the analysis, 13.9% had an ED visit within 90 days. Of the patients who underwent the 16,767 hip procedures included in the analysis, 13.5% had an ED visit within 90 days.

For patients undergoing knee procedures, the mean MMCI was 0.868, and 10.7% of patients had a perfect MMCI score of 1. For patients undergoing hip replacement, the mean MMCI was 0.864, and 13.5% had an MMCI of 1.

After controlling for confounders such as age, comorbidities, distance to hospital, and neighborhood income, the researchers found a statistically significant negative association between greater continuity of care and the probability of an ED visit.

A knee replacement patient with an MMCI score of 1 had a 90-day ED visit probability of 12.8%. A patient who had visited multiple primary care clinicians before surgery had a probability of 15.2%.
 

‘Quarterbacks’ needed

Commenting on the findings, Harman Chaudhry, MD, MSc, an orthopedic surgeon at Sunnybrook Health Science Center, Toronto, said: “Their main message quantified what many of us in health care already sense is true: That patients do benefit when there’s somebody, specifically a primary care provider, to quarterback their health care, look over the entirety of their care, and really know the patient.

“These are elective procedures, and joint replacement is a very siloed and episodic instance of care where we, as surgeons in hospitals, think we can control a lot of the presurgical and postsurgical care and really optimize patients,” he added. “But it’s clear that despite that, patients are still benefiting from having somebody who has known them for a longer period of time.”

The longstanding shortage of family physicians in Canada has worsened, especially since the beginning of the pandemic. The shortage means that many people are denied access to a family doctor of their own, said Dr. Chaudhry, who was not involved in the research.

“In Canada, there’s a large chunk of the population that is having difficulty accessing a primary care physician, so those patients have created their own primary care experience, taking advantage of walk-in clinics, perhaps urgent care centers, EDs when they need emergency care, and locum [tenens] physicians that may come into the community once in a while. And so, they have created their own primary care experience, but there is not a single person or single medical home where they’ve been seen for a period of years,” he said.

“Many of the patients in this study who were in the ED had nobody that the surgeon could communicate with or send his notes to,” Dr. Chaudhry concluded.

No source of funding for this study was reported. Ms. Lethbridge and Dr. Chaudhry reported no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor received travel support from Stryker and DePuy Synthes, has stock or stock options in Stryker, and participated in a data safety monitoring board for Hip Innovation Technology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Neurology.

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

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

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

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

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

First study of its kind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Neurology.

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

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

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

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

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

First study of its kind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Neurology.

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

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

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

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

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

First study of its kind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System (Medtronic) is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

The panel voted 13-0, with 0 abstentions, that it is safe, but 7-6, with 0 abstentions, that it is effective. It voted 6-6, with 1 abstention, that the benefits outweigh the risk. The moderator’s tiebreaker vote went against the benefit-risk profile, for a final vote of 6 yes, 7 no, and 1 abstention.

The Symplicity Spyral system provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy. The proposed indication is for reduction of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite their use of antihypertensive medications, or in patients who cannot tolerate antihypertensive medications.

The Spyral device received breakthrough device designation in March 2020. The FDA determined that the device met the criteria for inclusion in the program because it was a novel technology and had the potential to provide more effective treatment for patients with resistant or uncontrolled hypertension.

Medtronic presented data from two studies, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF and SPYRAL HTN-ON randomized trials.

HTN-OFF enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be discontinued at the start of the trial. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months post renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device compared with sham control patients.

HTN-ON evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their blood pressure medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device. The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24 hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03–mm Hg reduction in ambulatory systolic blood pressure in active-treatment patients compared with sham control patients.

Many on the panel agreed that the device was safe and effective. Randall Starling, MD, professor of medicine in the Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute at Cleveland Clinic, said that he was comfortable with the data presented by Medtronic and that his affirmative vote reflected his recognition that hypertension is not effectively treated with current medications and that another tool in the armamentarium to treat patients is needed.

Matthew Corriere, MD, Frankel Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, abstained from voting on whether the benefits of the system outweighed its risks. “I think there is potential benefit, but we don’t know which patients are most likely to have a benefit that outweighs any risks. More selective indications for this product could potentially tip the balance of the benefit outweighing the risks,” he said.

Robert Yeh, MD, director, Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said he believed that the device was safe and effective and that its use resulted in a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients. He pointed to the wide variability in effectiveness across the patient population and suggested that as the device becomes more widely used, experience will show which patients will benefit the most from its use.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research at St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., said the data presented by Medtronic reassured him that the device was safe, but he said he remained unconvinced that the device was effective. “I think that, while this is a safe procedure, the efficacy was mild at best, and that was only at 3 months,” he said.

Other panel members agreed.

“Yes as to safety, but no as to effectiveness,” said Mark Lockhart, MD, professor, department of radiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham. “There is too much uncertainty about there actually being a real benefit to outweigh even a small risk of an invasive procedure,” he said.

One of the statisticians on the panel, Benjamin Saville, PhD, director and senior statistical scientist, Berry Consultants, Austin, Texas, said he did not feel that effectiveness was adequately demonstrated in the trial data presented by Medtronic.

He agreed there is a small but potentially clinically meaningful benefit but voted no because he did not think benefit was demonstrated for those patients in the proposed indication. “For me, I think I would need additional randomized data to convince me that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Julia Lewis, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against endorsing the device for efficacy. “We have one study that is negative and one that is minimally positive,” and there is no reason to think one of those results is more valid than the other, she said.

“So as far as I’m concerned, we still don’t know the efficacy of this, and if it gets on the market, the anecdotal, small sample size of each individual physician using this intervention will not allow them to select out the patients that will benefit from those who won’t benefit, and to not have a definitive study that better defines that it is efficacious and in whom is actually a disservice to the public,” she concluded.

After the panel meeting, Medtronic issued a statement on the result.

“We appreciate the robust conversation that occurred prior to the vote,” Jason Weidman, senior vice-president of the coronary and renal denervation business at Medtronic, said in the statement. “We will continue to collaborate with the FDA on bringing a new option to the millions of people living with high blood pressure.”

The lead investigator of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, David Kandzari, MD, chief at Piedmont Heart Institute and Cardiovascular Services, added, “The totality of the evidence demonstrated that there is a benefit with the SPYRAL RDN catheter, and there is no question about the safety of the procedure.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System (Medtronic) is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

The panel voted 13-0, with 0 abstentions, that it is safe, but 7-6, with 0 abstentions, that it is effective. It voted 6-6, with 1 abstention, that the benefits outweigh the risk. The moderator’s tiebreaker vote went against the benefit-risk profile, for a final vote of 6 yes, 7 no, and 1 abstention.

The Symplicity Spyral system provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy. The proposed indication is for reduction of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite their use of antihypertensive medications, or in patients who cannot tolerate antihypertensive medications.

The Spyral device received breakthrough device designation in March 2020. The FDA determined that the device met the criteria for inclusion in the program because it was a novel technology and had the potential to provide more effective treatment for patients with resistant or uncontrolled hypertension.

Medtronic presented data from two studies, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF and SPYRAL HTN-ON randomized trials.

HTN-OFF enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be discontinued at the start of the trial. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months post renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device compared with sham control patients.

HTN-ON evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their blood pressure medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device. The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24 hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03–mm Hg reduction in ambulatory systolic blood pressure in active-treatment patients compared with sham control patients.

Many on the panel agreed that the device was safe and effective. Randall Starling, MD, professor of medicine in the Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute at Cleveland Clinic, said that he was comfortable with the data presented by Medtronic and that his affirmative vote reflected his recognition that hypertension is not effectively treated with current medications and that another tool in the armamentarium to treat patients is needed.

Matthew Corriere, MD, Frankel Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, abstained from voting on whether the benefits of the system outweighed its risks. “I think there is potential benefit, but we don’t know which patients are most likely to have a benefit that outweighs any risks. More selective indications for this product could potentially tip the balance of the benefit outweighing the risks,” he said.

Robert Yeh, MD, director, Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said he believed that the device was safe and effective and that its use resulted in a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients. He pointed to the wide variability in effectiveness across the patient population and suggested that as the device becomes more widely used, experience will show which patients will benefit the most from its use.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research at St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., said the data presented by Medtronic reassured him that the device was safe, but he said he remained unconvinced that the device was effective. “I think that, while this is a safe procedure, the efficacy was mild at best, and that was only at 3 months,” he said.

Other panel members agreed.

“Yes as to safety, but no as to effectiveness,” said Mark Lockhart, MD, professor, department of radiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham. “There is too much uncertainty about there actually being a real benefit to outweigh even a small risk of an invasive procedure,” he said.

One of the statisticians on the panel, Benjamin Saville, PhD, director and senior statistical scientist, Berry Consultants, Austin, Texas, said he did not feel that effectiveness was adequately demonstrated in the trial data presented by Medtronic.

He agreed there is a small but potentially clinically meaningful benefit but voted no because he did not think benefit was demonstrated for those patients in the proposed indication. “For me, I think I would need additional randomized data to convince me that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Julia Lewis, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against endorsing the device for efficacy. “We have one study that is negative and one that is minimally positive,” and there is no reason to think one of those results is more valid than the other, she said.

“So as far as I’m concerned, we still don’t know the efficacy of this, and if it gets on the market, the anecdotal, small sample size of each individual physician using this intervention will not allow them to select out the patients that will benefit from those who won’t benefit, and to not have a definitive study that better defines that it is efficacious and in whom is actually a disservice to the public,” she concluded.

After the panel meeting, Medtronic issued a statement on the result.

“We appreciate the robust conversation that occurred prior to the vote,” Jason Weidman, senior vice-president of the coronary and renal denervation business at Medtronic, said in the statement. “We will continue to collaborate with the FDA on bringing a new option to the millions of people living with high blood pressure.”

The lead investigator of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, David Kandzari, MD, chief at Piedmont Heart Institute and Cardiovascular Services, added, “The totality of the evidence demonstrated that there is a benefit with the SPYRAL RDN catheter, and there is no question about the safety of the procedure.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System (Medtronic) is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

The panel voted 13-0, with 0 abstentions, that it is safe, but 7-6, with 0 abstentions, that it is effective. It voted 6-6, with 1 abstention, that the benefits outweigh the risk. The moderator’s tiebreaker vote went against the benefit-risk profile, for a final vote of 6 yes, 7 no, and 1 abstention.

The Symplicity Spyral system provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy. The proposed indication is for reduction of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite their use of antihypertensive medications, or in patients who cannot tolerate antihypertensive medications.

The Spyral device received breakthrough device designation in March 2020. The FDA determined that the device met the criteria for inclusion in the program because it was a novel technology and had the potential to provide more effective treatment for patients with resistant or uncontrolled hypertension.

Medtronic presented data from two studies, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF and SPYRAL HTN-ON randomized trials.

HTN-OFF enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be discontinued at the start of the trial. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months post renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device compared with sham control patients.

HTN-ON evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their blood pressure medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device. The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24 hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03–mm Hg reduction in ambulatory systolic blood pressure in active-treatment patients compared with sham control patients.

Many on the panel agreed that the device was safe and effective. Randall Starling, MD, professor of medicine in the Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute at Cleveland Clinic, said that he was comfortable with the data presented by Medtronic and that his affirmative vote reflected his recognition that hypertension is not effectively treated with current medications and that another tool in the armamentarium to treat patients is needed.

Matthew Corriere, MD, Frankel Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, abstained from voting on whether the benefits of the system outweighed its risks. “I think there is potential benefit, but we don’t know which patients are most likely to have a benefit that outweighs any risks. More selective indications for this product could potentially tip the balance of the benefit outweighing the risks,” he said.

Robert Yeh, MD, director, Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said he believed that the device was safe and effective and that its use resulted in a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients. He pointed to the wide variability in effectiveness across the patient population and suggested that as the device becomes more widely used, experience will show which patients will benefit the most from its use.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research at St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., said the data presented by Medtronic reassured him that the device was safe, but he said he remained unconvinced that the device was effective. “I think that, while this is a safe procedure, the efficacy was mild at best, and that was only at 3 months,” he said.

Other panel members agreed.

“Yes as to safety, but no as to effectiveness,” said Mark Lockhart, MD, professor, department of radiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham. “There is too much uncertainty about there actually being a real benefit to outweigh even a small risk of an invasive procedure,” he said.

One of the statisticians on the panel, Benjamin Saville, PhD, director and senior statistical scientist, Berry Consultants, Austin, Texas, said he did not feel that effectiveness was adequately demonstrated in the trial data presented by Medtronic.

He agreed there is a small but potentially clinically meaningful benefit but voted no because he did not think benefit was demonstrated for those patients in the proposed indication. “For me, I think I would need additional randomized data to convince me that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Julia Lewis, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against endorsing the device for efficacy. “We have one study that is negative and one that is minimally positive,” and there is no reason to think one of those results is more valid than the other, she said.

“So as far as I’m concerned, we still don’t know the efficacy of this, and if it gets on the market, the anecdotal, small sample size of each individual physician using this intervention will not allow them to select out the patients that will benefit from those who won’t benefit, and to not have a definitive study that better defines that it is efficacious and in whom is actually a disservice to the public,” she concluded.

After the panel meeting, Medtronic issued a statement on the result.

“We appreciate the robust conversation that occurred prior to the vote,” Jason Weidman, senior vice-president of the coronary and renal denervation business at Medtronic, said in the statement. “We will continue to collaborate with the FDA on bringing a new option to the millions of people living with high blood pressure.”

The lead investigator of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, David Kandzari, MD, chief at Piedmont Heart Institute and Cardiovascular Services, added, “The totality of the evidence demonstrated that there is a benefit with the SPYRAL RDN catheter, and there is no question about the safety of the procedure.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel has deemed the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation (uRDN) System safe and effective in lowering blood pressure for adults with uncontrolled hypertension who may be inadequately responsive to, or who are intolerant of, antihypertensive medications.

The device is intended to be used in renal arteries with diameters of 3.0 to 8.0 mm.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

After hearing data from three trials, RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, RADIANCE II, and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, the 12-member panel unanimously agreed that there was “reasonable assurance” that the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation System (ReCor Medical) was safe.

However, while most of the panel felt the device was effective, a few disagreed.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research for the Mid-America Heart and Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo., who was one of the three panel members who voted no regarding efficacy, stated that he had concerns about the duration and the degree of efficacy shown in the trials.

Mark Lockhart, MD, University of Alabama, Birmingham, also voted no. “I do think there was an effect for 2 months, but the duration of that positive effect appears to decline after that period of time.”

Benjamin Saville, PhD, echoed Dr. Lockhart’s concern: “The benefit is more short term, it is unclear what the long term benefit would be.”

Data from all three trials showed a significant drop in blood pressure with the device compared with pharmacologic therapy, but after 2 months of follow-up, that advantage disappeared.

The FDA highlighted data from the trials that showed that at 2 months, uRDN patients experienced significant reductions in systolic blood pressure compared with those treated with a sham device; however, by 6 months, there was a difference of only 1 mm Hg between the two groups.

“It seems when I look at 6 months and 12 months, the benefit is very tiny. We know the safety is fine, but a benefit of less than 1 mm Hg difference would not make me want to have an intervention,” said statistician Janet Wittes, PhD.

“I think the device is efficacious, even though there is not much difference between sham and treatment, but a big issue is the fact that half of our patients are not compliant. That will make the benefits over sham more clear,” noted Jim Blankenship, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of cardiology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

John Hirshfeld Jr., MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he voted yes on safety and efficacy but admitted he had some misgivings. “The sample size was small, but it is a novel tool to add to our tool box, and hopefully it will be used responsibly,” he said.

John Somberg, MD, professor emeritus of medicine, cardiology, and pharmacology, Rush University, Chicago, said the data on this procedure show “that antihypertensive medication works. Denervation is not superior to medications. It lowers blood pressure and is persistent, but when you can take the sham group to almost as good control as you get in the denervation group, that shows it can also be done with medicines.”

The panel wants to see results from additional studies in important subpopulations who are affected by hypertension, including Black people, women, the elderly, and people who already have cardiovascular risk factors, such as diabetes and heart failure.

Deneen Hesser, RN, the panel’s patient representative, called for any postmarketing studies that may be conducted by ReCor to include a good patient education program and also a way of documenting patient-reported outcomes.

“This would help us ascertain how happy people were if they were able to reduce their medication burden by, for example, one drug, or if they were willing to undergo a procedure to be able to stop taking so many antihypertensive medications,” she said.

The panel will meet again to review data on Medtronic’s Simplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System, which is also for patients with uncontrolled hypertension.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel has deemed the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation (uRDN) System safe and effective in lowering blood pressure for adults with uncontrolled hypertension who may be inadequately responsive to, or who are intolerant of, antihypertensive medications.

The device is intended to be used in renal arteries with diameters of 3.0 to 8.0 mm.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

After hearing data from three trials, RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, RADIANCE II, and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, the 12-member panel unanimously agreed that there was “reasonable assurance” that the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation System (ReCor Medical) was safe.

However, while most of the panel felt the device was effective, a few disagreed.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research for the Mid-America Heart and Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo., who was one of the three panel members who voted no regarding efficacy, stated that he had concerns about the duration and the degree of efficacy shown in the trials.

Mark Lockhart, MD, University of Alabama, Birmingham, also voted no. “I do think there was an effect for 2 months, but the duration of that positive effect appears to decline after that period of time.”

Benjamin Saville, PhD, echoed Dr. Lockhart’s concern: “The benefit is more short term, it is unclear what the long term benefit would be.”

Data from all three trials showed a significant drop in blood pressure with the device compared with pharmacologic therapy, but after 2 months of follow-up, that advantage disappeared.

The FDA highlighted data from the trials that showed that at 2 months, uRDN patients experienced significant reductions in systolic blood pressure compared with those treated with a sham device; however, by 6 months, there was a difference of only 1 mm Hg between the two groups.

“It seems when I look at 6 months and 12 months, the benefit is very tiny. We know the safety is fine, but a benefit of less than 1 mm Hg difference would not make me want to have an intervention,” said statistician Janet Wittes, PhD.

“I think the device is efficacious, even though there is not much difference between sham and treatment, but a big issue is the fact that half of our patients are not compliant. That will make the benefits over sham more clear,” noted Jim Blankenship, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of cardiology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

John Hirshfeld Jr., MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he voted yes on safety and efficacy but admitted he had some misgivings. “The sample size was small, but it is a novel tool to add to our tool box, and hopefully it will be used responsibly,” he said.

John Somberg, MD, professor emeritus of medicine, cardiology, and pharmacology, Rush University, Chicago, said the data on this procedure show “that antihypertensive medication works. Denervation is not superior to medications. It lowers blood pressure and is persistent, but when you can take the sham group to almost as good control as you get in the denervation group, that shows it can also be done with medicines.”

The panel wants to see results from additional studies in important subpopulations who are affected by hypertension, including Black people, women, the elderly, and people who already have cardiovascular risk factors, such as diabetes and heart failure.

Deneen Hesser, RN, the panel’s patient representative, called for any postmarketing studies that may be conducted by ReCor to include a good patient education program and also a way of documenting patient-reported outcomes.

“This would help us ascertain how happy people were if they were able to reduce their medication burden by, for example, one drug, or if they were willing to undergo a procedure to be able to stop taking so many antihypertensive medications,” she said.

The panel will meet again to review data on Medtronic’s Simplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System, which is also for patients with uncontrolled hypertension.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel has deemed the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation (uRDN) System safe and effective in lowering blood pressure for adults with uncontrolled hypertension who may be inadequately responsive to, or who are intolerant of, antihypertensive medications.

The device is intended to be used in renal arteries with diameters of 3.0 to 8.0 mm.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

After hearing data from three trials, RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, RADIANCE II, and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, the 12-member panel unanimously agreed that there was “reasonable assurance” that the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation System (ReCor Medical) was safe.

However, while most of the panel felt the device was effective, a few disagreed.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research for the Mid-America Heart and Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo., who was one of the three panel members who voted no regarding efficacy, stated that he had concerns about the duration and the degree of efficacy shown in the trials.

Mark Lockhart, MD, University of Alabama, Birmingham, also voted no. “I do think there was an effect for 2 months, but the duration of that positive effect appears to decline after that period of time.”

Benjamin Saville, PhD, echoed Dr. Lockhart’s concern: “The benefit is more short term, it is unclear what the long term benefit would be.”

Data from all three trials showed a significant drop in blood pressure with the device compared with pharmacologic therapy, but after 2 months of follow-up, that advantage disappeared.

The FDA highlighted data from the trials that showed that at 2 months, uRDN patients experienced significant reductions in systolic blood pressure compared with those treated with a sham device; however, by 6 months, there was a difference of only 1 mm Hg between the two groups.

“It seems when I look at 6 months and 12 months, the benefit is very tiny. We know the safety is fine, but a benefit of less than 1 mm Hg difference would not make me want to have an intervention,” said statistician Janet Wittes, PhD.

“I think the device is efficacious, even though there is not much difference between sham and treatment, but a big issue is the fact that half of our patients are not compliant. That will make the benefits over sham more clear,” noted Jim Blankenship, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of cardiology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

John Hirshfeld Jr., MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he voted yes on safety and efficacy but admitted he had some misgivings. “The sample size was small, but it is a novel tool to add to our tool box, and hopefully it will be used responsibly,” he said.

John Somberg, MD, professor emeritus of medicine, cardiology, and pharmacology, Rush University, Chicago, said the data on this procedure show “that antihypertensive medication works. Denervation is not superior to medications. It lowers blood pressure and is persistent, but when you can take the sham group to almost as good control as you get in the denervation group, that shows it can also be done with medicines.”

The panel wants to see results from additional studies in important subpopulations who are affected by hypertension, including Black people, women, the elderly, and people who already have cardiovascular risk factors, such as diabetes and heart failure.

Deneen Hesser, RN, the panel’s patient representative, called for any postmarketing studies that may be conducted by ReCor to include a good patient education program and also a way of documenting patient-reported outcomes.

“This would help us ascertain how happy people were if they were able to reduce their medication burden by, for example, one drug, or if they were willing to undergo a procedure to be able to stop taking so many antihypertensive medications,” she said.

The panel will meet again to review data on Medtronic’s Simplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System, which is also for patients with uncontrolled hypertension.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.