Clinical Psychiatry News

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

Current evidence does not support use of “excited delirium” or “excited delirium syndrome” as a medical diagnosis, the American Medical Association said June 14, and the term should not be used unless clear diagnostic criteria are validated.

The term is disproportionately applied to people of color, “for whom inappropriate and excessive pharmacotherapy continues to be the norm instead of behavioral deescalation,” the report by the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health stated, and is therefore indicative of systemic racism.

That conclusion was one of many included in CSAPH Report 2, which was adopted June 14 at the special meeting of the AMA House of Delegates.

The AMA also opposes “use of sedative/hypnotic and dissociative agents, including ketamine, as a pharmacologic intervention for agitated individuals in the out-of-hospital setting, when done solely for a law enforcement purpose.”

Medications typically used for restraint include dissociative ketamine, benzodiazepine sedatives such as midazolam, and antipsychotic medications including olanzapine or haloperidol, alone or in combination.

Kenneth Certa, MD, from the American Psychiatric Association, speaking on behalf of the section council on psychiatry, said in a reference committee hearing: “We have been very concerned over the years with the development of the inexact diagnosis of ‘agitated delirium’ or ‘excited delirium,’ especially after having had a number of individuals, more than what’s reported in the press, die by the use of ketamine in the field for this inexact diagnosis.”

Tamaan Osbourne-Roberts, MD, a delegate and CSAPH member, said the diagnosis lacks scientific evidence and is “disproportionately applied to otherwise healthy Black men in their mid-30s and these men are most likely to die from resulting first-responder actions.”

Dr. Osbourne-Roberts testified that deescalation training should be more widely used and that crisis intervention team models in which behavioral health specialists are first deployed to respond to behavioral health emergencies should be more prevalent.

Andrew Rudawsky, MD, an assistant medical director of two emergency departments and delegate from Ohio, speaking as an individual, testified: “I can tell you from first-hand experience that ‘excited delirium’ is very real. These acutely ill, unstable patients have an emergency medical condition best cared for by an emergency medicine physician.”

The report recognizes that drugs used outside a hospital setting by nonphysicians come with significant risks, particularly for those with underlying conditions and in terms of drug–drug interactions.

“I completely agree that medicine should not be practiced by law enforcement,” Dr. Rudawsky said. “I’m gravely concerned by the legal ramifications of stating that this condition doesn’t exist.”

He said he is optimistic that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) will be updated to include “excited delirium.”

The report urges that medical and behavioral health specialists, instead of law enforcement, serve as first responders and decision-makers in medical and mental health emergencies in local communities.

Additionally, the report urges that “administration of any pharmacologic treatments in the out-of-hospital setting be done equitably, in an evidence-based, antiracist, and stigma-free way.”

The report calls on law enforcement and frontline emergency medical service personnel, who are a part of the “dual response” in emergency situations, to engage in training overseen by EMS medical directors. “The training should minimally include deescalation techniques and the appropriate use of pharmacologic intervention for agitated individuals in the out-of-hospital setting,” the report states.

 

Recommendation on oversight draws controversy

Several commenters were emergency physicians and medical directors who expressed concern that investigation of potential cases of inappropriate pharmacologic intervention would be overseen by nonphysicians.

The CSAPH authors write that independent investigators are appropriate, whereas those in emergency medicine say EMS medical directors should lead oversight.

Stephen Epstein, MD, chair of the section council on emergency medicine, speaking on behalf of the section council, had moved for referral of the portion of the report that deals with oversight of EMS.

“We’re concerned that recommendation 6, by calling for independent investigators, would put nonphysicians in the position of supervising the practice of medicine of a board-approved specialty. This would set an unfortunate precedent for our AMA,” he said.

Dr. Epstein also said the American College of Emergency Physicians will soon release a report on “excited delirium,” which will add key information for debating the issue.

He added that a new report on the safety of ketamine in out-of-hospital use was published just last week in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The authors reviewed more than 11,000 cases of the pharmacologic intervention over the past 2 years.

“We believe this information may add substantively to the recommendation in this report,” Dr. Epstein said.

Recommendation 6 was referred to the AMA Board for a decision, but the rest of the report was overwhelmingly adopted.

Dr. Certa, Dr. Osbourne-Roberts, Dr. Rudawsky, and Dr. Epstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Current evidence does not support use of “excited delirium” or “excited delirium syndrome” as a medical diagnosis, the American Medical Association said June 14, and the term should not be used unless clear diagnostic criteria are validated.

The term is disproportionately applied to people of color, “for whom inappropriate and excessive pharmacotherapy continues to be the norm instead of behavioral deescalation,” the report by the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health stated, and is therefore indicative of systemic racism.

That conclusion was one of many included in CSAPH Report 2, which was adopted June 14 at the special meeting of the AMA House of Delegates.

The AMA also opposes “use of sedative/hypnotic and dissociative agents, including ketamine, as a pharmacologic intervention for agitated individuals in the out-of-hospital setting, when done solely for a law enforcement purpose.”

Medications typically used for restraint include dissociative ketamine, benzodiazepine sedatives such as midazolam, and antipsychotic medications including olanzapine or haloperidol, alone or in combination.

Kenneth Certa, MD, from the American Psychiatric Association, speaking on behalf of the section council on psychiatry, said in a reference committee hearing: “We have been very concerned over the years with the development of the inexact diagnosis of ‘agitated delirium’ or ‘excited delirium,’ especially after having had a number of individuals, more than what’s reported in the press, die by the use of ketamine in the field for this inexact diagnosis.”

Tamaan Osbourne-Roberts, MD, a delegate and CSAPH member, said the diagnosis lacks scientific evidence and is “disproportionately applied to otherwise healthy Black men in their mid-30s and these men are most likely to die from resulting first-responder actions.”

Dr. Osbourne-Roberts testified that deescalation training should be more widely used and that crisis intervention team models in which behavioral health specialists are first deployed to respond to behavioral health emergencies should be more prevalent.

Andrew Rudawsky, MD, an assistant medical director of two emergency departments and delegate from Ohio, speaking as an individual, testified: “I can tell you from first-hand experience that ‘excited delirium’ is very real. These acutely ill, unstable patients have an emergency medical condition best cared for by an emergency medicine physician.”

The report recognizes that drugs used outside a hospital setting by nonphysicians come with significant risks, particularly for those with underlying conditions and in terms of drug–drug interactions.

“I completely agree that medicine should not be practiced by law enforcement,” Dr. Rudawsky said. “I’m gravely concerned by the legal ramifications of stating that this condition doesn’t exist.”

He said he is optimistic that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) will be updated to include “excited delirium.”

The report urges that medical and behavioral health specialists, instead of law enforcement, serve as first responders and decision-makers in medical and mental health emergencies in local communities.

Additionally, the report urges that “administration of any pharmacologic treatments in the out-of-hospital setting be done equitably, in an evidence-based, antiracist, and stigma-free way.”

The report calls on law enforcement and frontline emergency medical service personnel, who are a part of the “dual response” in emergency situations, to engage in training overseen by EMS medical directors. “The training should minimally include deescalation techniques and the appropriate use of pharmacologic intervention for agitated individuals in the out-of-hospital setting,” the report states.

 

Recommendation on oversight draws controversy

Several commenters were emergency physicians and medical directors who expressed concern that investigation of potential cases of inappropriate pharmacologic intervention would be overseen by nonphysicians.

The CSAPH authors write that independent investigators are appropriate, whereas those in emergency medicine say EMS medical directors should lead oversight.

Stephen Epstein, MD, chair of the section council on emergency medicine, speaking on behalf of the section council, had moved for referral of the portion of the report that deals with oversight of EMS.

“We’re concerned that recommendation 6, by calling for independent investigators, would put nonphysicians in the position of supervising the practice of medicine of a board-approved specialty. This would set an unfortunate precedent for our AMA,” he said.

Dr. Epstein also said the American College of Emergency Physicians will soon release a report on “excited delirium,” which will add key information for debating the issue.

He added that a new report on the safety of ketamine in out-of-hospital use was published just last week in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The authors reviewed more than 11,000 cases of the pharmacologic intervention over the past 2 years.

“We believe this information may add substantively to the recommendation in this report,” Dr. Epstein said.

Recommendation 6 was referred to the AMA Board for a decision, but the rest of the report was overwhelmingly adopted.

Dr. Certa, Dr. Osbourne-Roberts, Dr. Rudawsky, and Dr. Epstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Current evidence does not support use of “excited delirium” or “excited delirium syndrome” as a medical diagnosis, the American Medical Association said June 14, and the term should not be used unless clear diagnostic criteria are validated.

The term is disproportionately applied to people of color, “for whom inappropriate and excessive pharmacotherapy continues to be the norm instead of behavioral deescalation,” the report by the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health stated, and is therefore indicative of systemic racism.

That conclusion was one of many included in CSAPH Report 2, which was adopted June 14 at the special meeting of the AMA House of Delegates.

The AMA also opposes “use of sedative/hypnotic and dissociative agents, including ketamine, as a pharmacologic intervention for agitated individuals in the out-of-hospital setting, when done solely for a law enforcement purpose.”

Medications typically used for restraint include dissociative ketamine, benzodiazepine sedatives such as midazolam, and antipsychotic medications including olanzapine or haloperidol, alone or in combination.

Kenneth Certa, MD, from the American Psychiatric Association, speaking on behalf of the section council on psychiatry, said in a reference committee hearing: “We have been very concerned over the years with the development of the inexact diagnosis of ‘agitated delirium’ or ‘excited delirium,’ especially after having had a number of individuals, more than what’s reported in the press, die by the use of ketamine in the field for this inexact diagnosis.”

Tamaan Osbourne-Roberts, MD, a delegate and CSAPH member, said the diagnosis lacks scientific evidence and is “disproportionately applied to otherwise healthy Black men in their mid-30s and these men are most likely to die from resulting first-responder actions.”

Dr. Osbourne-Roberts testified that deescalation training should be more widely used and that crisis intervention team models in which behavioral health specialists are first deployed to respond to behavioral health emergencies should be more prevalent.

Andrew Rudawsky, MD, an assistant medical director of two emergency departments and delegate from Ohio, speaking as an individual, testified: “I can tell you from first-hand experience that ‘excited delirium’ is very real. These acutely ill, unstable patients have an emergency medical condition best cared for by an emergency medicine physician.”

The report recognizes that drugs used outside a hospital setting by nonphysicians come with significant risks, particularly for those with underlying conditions and in terms of drug–drug interactions.

“I completely agree that medicine should not be practiced by law enforcement,” Dr. Rudawsky said. “I’m gravely concerned by the legal ramifications of stating that this condition doesn’t exist.”

He said he is optimistic that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) will be updated to include “excited delirium.”

The report urges that medical and behavioral health specialists, instead of law enforcement, serve as first responders and decision-makers in medical and mental health emergencies in local communities.

Additionally, the report urges that “administration of any pharmacologic treatments in the out-of-hospital setting be done equitably, in an evidence-based, antiracist, and stigma-free way.”

The report calls on law enforcement and frontline emergency medical service personnel, who are a part of the “dual response” in emergency situations, to engage in training overseen by EMS medical directors. “The training should minimally include deescalation techniques and the appropriate use of pharmacologic intervention for agitated individuals in the out-of-hospital setting,” the report states.

 

Recommendation on oversight draws controversy

Several commenters were emergency physicians and medical directors who expressed concern that investigation of potential cases of inappropriate pharmacologic intervention would be overseen by nonphysicians.

The CSAPH authors write that independent investigators are appropriate, whereas those in emergency medicine say EMS medical directors should lead oversight.

Stephen Epstein, MD, chair of the section council on emergency medicine, speaking on behalf of the section council, had moved for referral of the portion of the report that deals with oversight of EMS.

“We’re concerned that recommendation 6, by calling for independent investigators, would put nonphysicians in the position of supervising the practice of medicine of a board-approved specialty. This would set an unfortunate precedent for our AMA,” he said.

Dr. Epstein also said the American College of Emergency Physicians will soon release a report on “excited delirium,” which will add key information for debating the issue.

He added that a new report on the safety of ketamine in out-of-hospital use was published just last week in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The authors reviewed more than 11,000 cases of the pharmacologic intervention over the past 2 years.

“We believe this information may add substantively to the recommendation in this report,” Dr. Epstein said.

Recommendation 6 was referred to the AMA Board for a decision, but the rest of the report was overwhelmingly adopted.

Dr. Certa, Dr. Osbourne-Roberts, Dr. Rudawsky, and Dr. Epstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

Veterans with chronic headaches had a greater risk of a suicide attempt than that of veterans suffering from chronic neck or back pain, according to findings presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Risk rose even more in those with chronic headache pain and a comorbid traumatic brain injury (TBI).

“In addition, as expected, veterans with psychiatric conditions have increased risk of suicide attempt with the exception of anxiety in men and dependent personality in women,” said X. Michelle Androulakis, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.
 

‘Surprising’ findings

“These findings are eye-opening but not surprising since we know that veterans in general and people with chronic pain are at higher risk for suicidal behaviors compared with their civilian counterparts,” said Amy. S Grinberg, PhD, a clinical health psychologist who practices in New Rochelle, N.Y. Dr. Grinberg, who also works at VA Connecticut Healthcare System, was not involved in the study.

“It is, however, very interesting that suicidal attempts are higher in veterans with chronic headache compared with other chronic pain disorders, such as chronic neck and back pain,” Dr Grinberg said. “This really highlights the impact of living with a chronic headache disorder, and emphasizes the continued efforts that should be put into place to support veterans with chronic headache, including improved access to a range of treatment options and continued funding for future research.”
 

Veterans with chronic pain

The researchers retrospectively analyzed Veterans Health Administration electronic health records of 3,252,704 veterans, predominantly male and White, who had been diagnosed with any type of chronic pain from 2000 to 2010.

The researchers looked at overall headache diagnoses instead of specific diagnoses, such as migraine, cluster headache, or posttraumatic headache, since specific headache disorders are frequently underdiagnosed.

The population included 14.7% of patients with chronic headache, 14.9% with chronic neck pain, 59.2% with chronic back pain, and 60.2% with other types of chronic pain, including arthritis, fibromyalgia, joint pain, and reflex sympathetic dystrophy.

Traumatic brain injury occurred in 11.2% of those with chronic headaches, compared with 6.8% of those with chronic back pain, 8.5% of those with chronic neck pain, and 5.9% of those with other chronic pain.

More than half (56.4%) of those with chronic headache had depression, the most common comorbidity in the group, followed by 31.5% who had posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 21.8% who had adjustment disorder. Other rates of psychiatric disorders were all below 10%. Prevalence of depression occurred in 44.5% of those with back pain, 52.4% of those with neck pain, and 39% of those with other chronic pain. PTSD rates were also lower in those with back (22%), neck (27.2%), or other chronic pain (18.6%).

“Interestingly, this study found that those veterans with a history of traumatic brain injury and psychiatric comorbidities, such as depression, are at greater risk for suicide attempts,” said Dr. Grinberg. “The good news is that these are modifiable risk factors, and evidence-based treatments for depression, PTSD, and headache, for example, are widely disseminated within the VA.”

The majority of headache diagnoses were not otherwise specified (80.1%). Half (50.2%) were migraine headaches while rates were much lower for tension-type headache (8.8%), trigeminal neuralgia (5%), cluster headache (0.8%), and posttraumatic headache (0.7%).

The highest incidence of suicide attempts occurred among those with chronic headaches, ranging from 329 to 396 per 100,000, aside from a peak of 482 per 100,000 in 2005. Suicide attempts peaked among all patients with chronic pain in 2005, “likely related to the deployment and policy changes in the Veterans Health Administration,” Dr. Androulakis said.

Those with neck pain had the next highest rate of suicide attempts, ranging from 263 to 314 per 100,000, excluding the peak of 398 per 100,000 in 2005.

Male veterans with chronic headaches had a 1.5 times greater likelihood of a suicide attempt than did those with back or neck pain (relative risk [RR] = 1.5), which increased to a relative risk of 2.8 greater for those with concurrent TBI. Among female veterans, chronic headache was associated with a 1.6 times greater risk of a suicide attempt, which rose to 2.15 times greater with concurrent TBI.

“Knowing that veterans with chronic headache disorders have an elevated rate of suicide, it is imperative that doctors and other clinical providers continue to conduct in-depth risk assessments and implement strategies to support those veterans who are at risk,” said Dr. Grinberg. “Clinical providers should continue in their efforts to reduce stigma associated with headache disorders and mental health treatment in order to effectively engage veterans in evidence-based treatments that are likely a step towards reducing symptoms and suicidal attempts.”

No external funding was noted. Dr. Androulakis and Dr. Grinberg had no disclosures.

Veterans with chronic headaches had a greater risk of a suicide attempt than that of veterans suffering from chronic neck or back pain, according to findings presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Risk rose even more in those with chronic headache pain and a comorbid traumatic brain injury (TBI).

“In addition, as expected, veterans with psychiatric conditions have increased risk of suicide attempt with the exception of anxiety in men and dependent personality in women,” said X. Michelle Androulakis, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.
 

‘Surprising’ findings

“These findings are eye-opening but not surprising since we know that veterans in general and people with chronic pain are at higher risk for suicidal behaviors compared with their civilian counterparts,” said Amy. S Grinberg, PhD, a clinical health psychologist who practices in New Rochelle, N.Y. Dr. Grinberg, who also works at VA Connecticut Healthcare System, was not involved in the study.

“It is, however, very interesting that suicidal attempts are higher in veterans with chronic headache compared with other chronic pain disorders, such as chronic neck and back pain,” Dr Grinberg said. “This really highlights the impact of living with a chronic headache disorder, and emphasizes the continued efforts that should be put into place to support veterans with chronic headache, including improved access to a range of treatment options and continued funding for future research.”
 

Veterans with chronic pain

The researchers retrospectively analyzed Veterans Health Administration electronic health records of 3,252,704 veterans, predominantly male and White, who had been diagnosed with any type of chronic pain from 2000 to 2010.

The researchers looked at overall headache diagnoses instead of specific diagnoses, such as migraine, cluster headache, or posttraumatic headache, since specific headache disorders are frequently underdiagnosed.

The population included 14.7% of patients with chronic headache, 14.9% with chronic neck pain, 59.2% with chronic back pain, and 60.2% with other types of chronic pain, including arthritis, fibromyalgia, joint pain, and reflex sympathetic dystrophy.

Traumatic brain injury occurred in 11.2% of those with chronic headaches, compared with 6.8% of those with chronic back pain, 8.5% of those with chronic neck pain, and 5.9% of those with other chronic pain.

More than half (56.4%) of those with chronic headache had depression, the most common comorbidity in the group, followed by 31.5% who had posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 21.8% who had adjustment disorder. Other rates of psychiatric disorders were all below 10%. Prevalence of depression occurred in 44.5% of those with back pain, 52.4% of those with neck pain, and 39% of those with other chronic pain. PTSD rates were also lower in those with back (22%), neck (27.2%), or other chronic pain (18.6%).

“Interestingly, this study found that those veterans with a history of traumatic brain injury and psychiatric comorbidities, such as depression, are at greater risk for suicide attempts,” said Dr. Grinberg. “The good news is that these are modifiable risk factors, and evidence-based treatments for depression, PTSD, and headache, for example, are widely disseminated within the VA.”

The majority of headache diagnoses were not otherwise specified (80.1%). Half (50.2%) were migraine headaches while rates were much lower for tension-type headache (8.8%), trigeminal neuralgia (5%), cluster headache (0.8%), and posttraumatic headache (0.7%).

The highest incidence of suicide attempts occurred among those with chronic headaches, ranging from 329 to 396 per 100,000, aside from a peak of 482 per 100,000 in 2005. Suicide attempts peaked among all patients with chronic pain in 2005, “likely related to the deployment and policy changes in the Veterans Health Administration,” Dr. Androulakis said.

Those with neck pain had the next highest rate of suicide attempts, ranging from 263 to 314 per 100,000, excluding the peak of 398 per 100,000 in 2005.

Male veterans with chronic headaches had a 1.5 times greater likelihood of a suicide attempt than did those with back or neck pain (relative risk [RR] = 1.5), which increased to a relative risk of 2.8 greater for those with concurrent TBI. Among female veterans, chronic headache was associated with a 1.6 times greater risk of a suicide attempt, which rose to 2.15 times greater with concurrent TBI.

“Knowing that veterans with chronic headache disorders have an elevated rate of suicide, it is imperative that doctors and other clinical providers continue to conduct in-depth risk assessments and implement strategies to support those veterans who are at risk,” said Dr. Grinberg. “Clinical providers should continue in their efforts to reduce stigma associated with headache disorders and mental health treatment in order to effectively engage veterans in evidence-based treatments that are likely a step towards reducing symptoms and suicidal attempts.”

No external funding was noted. Dr. Androulakis and Dr. Grinberg had no disclosures.

Veterans with chronic headaches had a greater risk of a suicide attempt than that of veterans suffering from chronic neck or back pain, according to findings presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Risk rose even more in those with chronic headache pain and a comorbid traumatic brain injury (TBI).

“In addition, as expected, veterans with psychiatric conditions have increased risk of suicide attempt with the exception of anxiety in men and dependent personality in women,” said X. Michelle Androulakis, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.
 

‘Surprising’ findings

“These findings are eye-opening but not surprising since we know that veterans in general and people with chronic pain are at higher risk for suicidal behaviors compared with their civilian counterparts,” said Amy. S Grinberg, PhD, a clinical health psychologist who practices in New Rochelle, N.Y. Dr. Grinberg, who also works at VA Connecticut Healthcare System, was not involved in the study.

“It is, however, very interesting that suicidal attempts are higher in veterans with chronic headache compared with other chronic pain disorders, such as chronic neck and back pain,” Dr Grinberg said. “This really highlights the impact of living with a chronic headache disorder, and emphasizes the continued efforts that should be put into place to support veterans with chronic headache, including improved access to a range of treatment options and continued funding for future research.”
 

Veterans with chronic pain

The researchers retrospectively analyzed Veterans Health Administration electronic health records of 3,252,704 veterans, predominantly male and White, who had been diagnosed with any type of chronic pain from 2000 to 2010.

The researchers looked at overall headache diagnoses instead of specific diagnoses, such as migraine, cluster headache, or posttraumatic headache, since specific headache disorders are frequently underdiagnosed.

The population included 14.7% of patients with chronic headache, 14.9% with chronic neck pain, 59.2% with chronic back pain, and 60.2% with other types of chronic pain, including arthritis, fibromyalgia, joint pain, and reflex sympathetic dystrophy.

Traumatic brain injury occurred in 11.2% of those with chronic headaches, compared with 6.8% of those with chronic back pain, 8.5% of those with chronic neck pain, and 5.9% of those with other chronic pain.

More than half (56.4%) of those with chronic headache had depression, the most common comorbidity in the group, followed by 31.5% who had posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 21.8% who had adjustment disorder. Other rates of psychiatric disorders were all below 10%. Prevalence of depression occurred in 44.5% of those with back pain, 52.4% of those with neck pain, and 39% of those with other chronic pain. PTSD rates were also lower in those with back (22%), neck (27.2%), or other chronic pain (18.6%).

“Interestingly, this study found that those veterans with a history of traumatic brain injury and psychiatric comorbidities, such as depression, are at greater risk for suicide attempts,” said Dr. Grinberg. “The good news is that these are modifiable risk factors, and evidence-based treatments for depression, PTSD, and headache, for example, are widely disseminated within the VA.”

The majority of headache diagnoses were not otherwise specified (80.1%). Half (50.2%) were migraine headaches while rates were much lower for tension-type headache (8.8%), trigeminal neuralgia (5%), cluster headache (0.8%), and posttraumatic headache (0.7%).

The highest incidence of suicide attempts occurred among those with chronic headaches, ranging from 329 to 396 per 100,000, aside from a peak of 482 per 100,000 in 2005. Suicide attempts peaked among all patients with chronic pain in 2005, “likely related to the deployment and policy changes in the Veterans Health Administration,” Dr. Androulakis said.

Those with neck pain had the next highest rate of suicide attempts, ranging from 263 to 314 per 100,000, excluding the peak of 398 per 100,000 in 2005.

Male veterans with chronic headaches had a 1.5 times greater likelihood of a suicide attempt than did those with back or neck pain (relative risk [RR] = 1.5), which increased to a relative risk of 2.8 greater for those with concurrent TBI. Among female veterans, chronic headache was associated with a 1.6 times greater risk of a suicide attempt, which rose to 2.15 times greater with concurrent TBI.

“Knowing that veterans with chronic headache disorders have an elevated rate of suicide, it is imperative that doctors and other clinical providers continue to conduct in-depth risk assessments and implement strategies to support those veterans who are at risk,” said Dr. Grinberg. “Clinical providers should continue in their efforts to reduce stigma associated with headache disorders and mental health treatment in order to effectively engage veterans in evidence-based treatments that are likely a step towards reducing symptoms and suicidal attempts.”

No external funding was noted. Dr. Androulakis and Dr. Grinberg had no disclosures.

Being overweight or having obesity significantly increases the risk for liver disease and the likelihood of dying from it compared with being of normal weight, regardless of level of alcohol consumption, new research shows. 
"People in the overweight or obese range who drank were found to be at greater risk of liver diseases compared with participants within a healthy weight range who consumed alcohol at the same level," senior author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, of the Charles Perkins Centre and the Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, said in a press statement. 
"Even for people who drank within alcohol guidelines, participants classified as obese were at over 50% greater risk of liver disease," he said. 
"Obesity is an independent risk factor for steatosis, acute alcoholic hepatitis, and cirrhosis in alcoholic liver disease (ALD), which may increase the risk of mortality in ALD patients," the study's first author, Elif Inan-Eroglu, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview. 
Further prospective studies are needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms behind the association between alcohol consumption and liver disease across different adiposity levels, the authors say. 
Meanwhile, the take-home message from the findings should be that "clinicians should consider the presence of overweight and obesity when they discuss defining safe alcohol levels for their patients, keeping in mind that there is no 'safe' level of alcohol," Dr. Inan-Eroglu said. 
"Alcohol drinking guidelines need to acknowledge that two-thirds of the adult population are overweight or obese and consider specific recommendations for this majority population group," he said.  

First and largest study of its kind 

Obesity, well-known to be an independent risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is also known to worsen outcomes in ALD. And likewise, alcohol consumption, the cause of ALD, can promote obesity and therefore increase the risk of NAFLD. 
Dr. Stamatakis and colleagues sought to evaluate the roles of the combined factors in terms of incidence and mortality in both ALD and NAFLD. 
For the study, published online May 31 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, they evaluated data from 465,437 participants in the U.K. Biobank. The study is said to be the first and largest of its kind. 
In the cohort, a total of 1,090 liver disease deaths were recorded, including 230 deaths from ALD and 192 from NAFLD over an average follow-up of 10.5 years. 
After a multivariate adjustment, the overall risk of ALD, NAFLD, and liver disease incidence and mortality were significantly higher in participants who were overweight or had obesity, compared with those of normal weight, at all levels of alcohol consumption. 
For instance, among those with alcohol use exceeding guidelines, the risk of ALD was significantly increased in normal weight individuals versus never-drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 5.38), and the risk was even higher among those who were also overweight or had obesity (HR, 8.58). 
In terms of the risk of death related to ALD, among those reporting alcohol consumption above guidelines, the risk was nearly double among those who were overweight or had obesity (HR, 10.29) versus those with normal weight (HR, 5.84), when each group was compared to those drinking within guidelines. 
Regarding NAFLD, consistent with evidence that low to moderate alcohol consumption is, in fact, linked to a reduced risk, those in the study who reported alcohol consumption within guidelines and normal weight did show a reduced risk of NAFLD compared with an index group of never-drinkers (HR, 0.85). 
However, being overweight or having obesity increased the risk of NAFLD in those participants (HR, 1.51). 
Furthermore, even those reporting alcohol consumption above guidelines who were of normal weight had a reduced risk of NAFLD compared with never drinkers of normal weight (HR, 0.89).   
Regarding the risk of liver disease among those reporting alcohol consumption above guidelines compared with never-drinkers, the risk was again lower among those of normal weight versus those who were overweight or had obesity (HR, 0.95 vs. 1.52), as were the risks of mortality (HR, 1.24 vs. 2.20). 
Overall, "we found evidence that being overweight/[having obesity] amplified the harmful effect of alcohol on the liver disease incidence and mortality," the authors conclude. 
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Being overweight or having obesity significantly increases the risk for liver disease and the likelihood of dying from it compared with being of normal weight, regardless of level of alcohol consumption, new research shows. 
"People in the overweight or obese range who drank were found to be at greater risk of liver diseases compared with participants within a healthy weight range who consumed alcohol at the same level," senior author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, of the Charles Perkins Centre and the Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, said in a press statement. 
"Even for people who drank within alcohol guidelines, participants classified as obese were at over 50% greater risk of liver disease," he said. 
"Obesity is an independent risk factor for steatosis, acute alcoholic hepatitis, and cirrhosis in alcoholic liver disease (ALD), which may increase the risk of mortality in ALD patients," the study's first author, Elif Inan-Eroglu, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview. 
Further prospective studies are needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms behind the association between alcohol consumption and liver disease across different adiposity levels, the authors say. 
Meanwhile, the take-home message from the findings should be that "clinicians should consider the presence of overweight and obesity when they discuss defining safe alcohol levels for their patients, keeping in mind that there is no 'safe' level of alcohol," Dr. Inan-Eroglu said. 
"Alcohol drinking guidelines need to acknowledge that two-thirds of the adult population are overweight or obese and consider specific recommendations for this majority population group," he said.  

First and largest study of its kind 

Obesity, well-known to be an independent risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is also known to worsen outcomes in ALD. And likewise, alcohol consumption, the cause of ALD, can promote obesity and therefore increase the risk of NAFLD. 
Dr. Stamatakis and colleagues sought to evaluate the roles of the combined factors in terms of incidence and mortality in both ALD and NAFLD. 
For the study, published online May 31 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, they evaluated data from 465,437 participants in the U.K. Biobank. The study is said to be the first and largest of its kind. 
In the cohort, a total of 1,090 liver disease deaths were recorded, including 230 deaths from ALD and 192 from NAFLD over an average follow-up of 10.5 years. 
After a multivariate adjustment, the overall risk of ALD, NAFLD, and liver disease incidence and mortality were significantly higher in participants who were overweight or had obesity, compared with those of normal weight, at all levels of alcohol consumption. 
For instance, among those with alcohol use exceeding guidelines, the risk of ALD was significantly increased in normal weight individuals versus never-drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 5.38), and the risk was even higher among those who were also overweight or had obesity (HR, 8.58). 
In terms of the risk of death related to ALD, among those reporting alcohol consumption above guidelines, the risk was nearly double among those who were overweight or had obesity (HR, 10.29) versus those with normal weight (HR, 5.84), when each group was compared to those drinking within guidelines. 
Regarding NAFLD, consistent with evidence that low to moderate alcohol consumption is, in fact, linked to a reduced risk, those in the study who reported alcohol consumption within guidelines and normal weight did show a reduced risk of NAFLD compared with an index group of never-drinkers (HR, 0.85). 
However, being overweight or having obesity increased the risk of NAFLD in those participants (HR, 1.51). 
Furthermore, even those reporting alcohol consumption above guidelines who were of normal weight had a reduced risk of NAFLD compared with never drinkers of normal weight (HR, 0.89).   
Regarding the risk of liver disease among those reporting alcohol consumption above guidelines compared with never-drinkers, the risk was again lower among those of normal weight versus those who were overweight or had obesity (HR, 0.95 vs. 1.52), as were the risks of mortality (HR, 1.24 vs. 2.20). 
Overall, "we found evidence that being overweight/[having obesity] amplified the harmful effect of alcohol on the liver disease incidence and mortality," the authors conclude. 
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Being overweight or having obesity significantly increases the risk for liver disease and the likelihood of dying from it compared with being of normal weight, regardless of level of alcohol consumption, new research shows. 
"People in the overweight or obese range who drank were found to be at greater risk of liver diseases compared with participants within a healthy weight range who consumed alcohol at the same level," senior author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, of the Charles Perkins Centre and the Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, said in a press statement. 
"Even for people who drank within alcohol guidelines, participants classified as obese were at over 50% greater risk of liver disease," he said. 
"Obesity is an independent risk factor for steatosis, acute alcoholic hepatitis, and cirrhosis in alcoholic liver disease (ALD), which may increase the risk of mortality in ALD patients," the study's first author, Elif Inan-Eroglu, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview. 
Further prospective studies are needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms behind the association between alcohol consumption and liver disease across different adiposity levels, the authors say. 
Meanwhile, the take-home message from the findings should be that "clinicians should consider the presence of overweight and obesity when they discuss defining safe alcohol levels for their patients, keeping in mind that there is no 'safe' level of alcohol," Dr. Inan-Eroglu said. 
"Alcohol drinking guidelines need to acknowledge that two-thirds of the adult population are overweight or obese and consider specific recommendations for this majority population group," he said.  

First and largest study of its kind 

Obesity, well-known to be an independent risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is also known to worsen outcomes in ALD. And likewise, alcohol consumption, the cause of ALD, can promote obesity and therefore increase the risk of NAFLD. 
Dr. Stamatakis and colleagues sought to evaluate the roles of the combined factors in terms of incidence and mortality in both ALD and NAFLD. 
For the study, published online May 31 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, they evaluated data from 465,437 participants in the U.K. Biobank. The study is said to be the first and largest of its kind. 
In the cohort, a total of 1,090 liver disease deaths were recorded, including 230 deaths from ALD and 192 from NAFLD over an average follow-up of 10.5 years. 
After a multivariate adjustment, the overall risk of ALD, NAFLD, and liver disease incidence and mortality were significantly higher in participants who were overweight or had obesity, compared with those of normal weight, at all levels of alcohol consumption. 
For instance, among those with alcohol use exceeding guidelines, the risk of ALD was significantly increased in normal weight individuals versus never-drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 5.38), and the risk was even higher among those who were also overweight or had obesity (HR, 8.58). 
In terms of the risk of death related to ALD, among those reporting alcohol consumption above guidelines, the risk was nearly double among those who were overweight or had obesity (HR, 10.29) versus those with normal weight (HR, 5.84), when each group was compared to those drinking within guidelines. 
Regarding NAFLD, consistent with evidence that low to moderate alcohol consumption is, in fact, linked to a reduced risk, those in the study who reported alcohol consumption within guidelines and normal weight did show a reduced risk of NAFLD compared with an index group of never-drinkers (HR, 0.85). 
However, being overweight or having obesity increased the risk of NAFLD in those participants (HR, 1.51). 
Furthermore, even those reporting alcohol consumption above guidelines who were of normal weight had a reduced risk of NAFLD compared with never drinkers of normal weight (HR, 0.89).   
Regarding the risk of liver disease among those reporting alcohol consumption above guidelines compared with never-drinkers, the risk was again lower among those of normal weight versus those who were overweight or had obesity (HR, 0.95 vs. 1.52), as were the risks of mortality (HR, 1.24 vs. 2.20). 
Overall, "we found evidence that being overweight/[having obesity] amplified the harmful effect of alcohol on the liver disease incidence and mortality," the authors conclude. 
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com