Federal Practitioner

As Veterans Day approaches, stores and restaurants will offer discounts and free meals to veterans. Children will write thank you letters, and citizens nationwide will raise flags to honor and thank veterans. We can never repay those who lost their life, health, or livelihood in defense of the nation. Since the American Revolution, and in gratitude for that incalculable debt, the US government, on behalf of the American public, has seen fit to grant a host of benefits and services to those who wore the uniform.^2,3 Among the best known are health care, burial services, compensation and pensions, home loans, and the GI Bill.

Less recognized yet arguably essential for the fair and consistent provision of these entitlements is a legal principle: the veteran’s canon. A canon is a system of rules or maxims used to interpret legal instruments, such as statutes. They are not rules but serve as a “principle that guides the interpretation of the text.”⁴ Since I am not a lawyer, I will undoubtedly oversimplify this legal principle, but I hope to get enough right to explain why the veteran’s canon should matter to federal health care professionals.

At its core, the veteran’s canon means that when the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and a veteran have a legal dispute about VA benefits, the courts will give deference to the veteran. Underscoring that any ambiguity in the statute is resolved in the veteran’s favor, the canon is known in legal circles as the Gardner deference. This is a reference to a 1994 case in which a Korean War veteran underwent surgery in a VA facility for a herniated disc he alleged caused pain and weakness in his left lower extremity.⁵ Gardner argued that federal statutes 38 USC § 1151 underlying corresponding VA regulation 38 CFR § 3.358(c)(3) granted disability benefits to veterans injured during VA treatment. The VA denied the disability claim, contending the regulation restricted compensation to veterans whose injury was the fault of the VA; thus, the disability had to have been the result of negligent treatment or an unforeseen therapeutic accident.⁵

The case wound its way through various appeals boards and courts until the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that the statute’s context left no ambiguity, and that any care provided under VA auspices was covered under the statute. What is important for this column is that the justices opined that had ambiguity been present, it would have legally necessitated, “applying the rule that interpretive doubt is to be resolved in the veteran’s favor.”⁵ In Gardner’s case, the courts reaffirmed nearly 80 years of judicial precedent upholding the veteran’s canon.

Thirty years later, Rudisill v McDonough again questioned the veteran’s canon.⁶ Educational benefits, namely the GI Bill, were the issue in this case. Rudisill served during 3 different periods in the US Army, totaling 8 years. Two educational programs overlapped during Rudisill’s tenure in the military: the Montgomery GI Bill and Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act. Rudisill had used a portion of his Montgomery benefits to fund his undergraduate education and now wished to use the more extensive Post-9/11 assistance to finance his graduate degree. Rudisill and the VA disagreed about when his combined benefits would be capped, either at 36 or 48 months. After working its way through appeals courts, SCOTUS was again called upon for judgment.

The justices found that Rudisill qualified under both programs and could use them in any order he wished up to the cap. The majority found no ambiguity in the statute; however, if interpretation was required, the majority of justices indicated that the veteran’s canon would have supported Rudisill. While this sounds like good news for veterans, 2 justices authored a dissenting opinion that questioned the constitutional grounding of the veteran’s canon, noting that the “canon appears to have developed almost by accident.”⁶ The minority opinion suggested that when the veteran’s canon allocates resources to pay for specific veteran benefits, other interests and groups are deprived of those same resources, resulting in potential inequity.⁷

The potential ethical import and clinical impact of striking down the veteran’s canon is serious. It is especially concerning given that in a recent case, the SCOTUS ruling struck down another legal interpretation that also benefited the VA and ultimately veterans: the Chevron deference.⁸ This precedent held that when a legal dispute arises about the meaning of a specific federal agency regulation or policy, the courts should defer to the federal agency’s presumably superior understanding of the matter. The principle places the locus of decision-making with the subject-matter experts of the respective agency rather than the courts.

Ironically, given the legislative purposes of both interpretive principles, their overturning would likely introduce much more uncertainty, variation, and unpredictability in cases involving veteran benefits. This is bad news for both veterans and the VA. Veterans might not prevail as often in court when they have a reasonable claim, leading to more aggressive challenges. In response, the VA would have a heavier and more costly burden of administrative proof to defend sound decisions.⁹ Recently, the VA has tried to reduce the backlog of claims. The inability to have legal recourse to Chevron or Gardener could result in even more delay in adjudicating veterans’ claims that enable them to access benefits and services, already an object of congressional pressure.¹⁰

Courts will continue to debate the issue with another judicial test of the canon on the current SCOTUS docket (Bufkin v McDonough).¹¹ The veteran’s canon was put in place to equalize the power differential between the VA and the veteran: in administrative language, to make it more likely than not that the veteran would prevail when regulations were ambiguous. There are many legal and political rationales for veteran’s canon, including enabling veterans to file claims for service-connected illnesses. The veteran’s cannon helped Vietnam War-era veterans receive VA care while researchers were still studying the sequela of Agent Orange exposure. ¹² The legislative purpose of the veteran’s canon is the same as that of all VA benefits and services commemorated on Veterans Day. As expressed by SCOTUS justices in the wake of World War II, the benefit statutes should be “liberally construed for the benefit of those who left private life to serve their country in its hour of greatest need.”¹³

As Veterans Day approaches, stores and restaurants will offer discounts and free meals to veterans. Children will write thank you letters, and citizens nationwide will raise flags to honor and thank veterans. We can never repay those who lost their life, health, or livelihood in defense of the nation. Since the American Revolution, and in gratitude for that incalculable debt, the US government, on behalf of the American public, has seen fit to grant a host of benefits and services to those who wore the uniform.^2,3 Among the best known are health care, burial services, compensation and pensions, home loans, and the GI Bill.

Less recognized yet arguably essential for the fair and consistent provision of these entitlements is a legal principle: the veteran’s canon. A canon is a system of rules or maxims used to interpret legal instruments, such as statutes. They are not rules but serve as a “principle that guides the interpretation of the text.”⁴ Since I am not a lawyer, I will undoubtedly oversimplify this legal principle, but I hope to get enough right to explain why the veteran’s canon should matter to federal health care professionals.

At its core, the veteran’s canon means that when the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and a veteran have a legal dispute about VA benefits, the courts will give deference to the veteran. Underscoring that any ambiguity in the statute is resolved in the veteran’s favor, the canon is known in legal circles as the Gardner deference. This is a reference to a 1994 case in which a Korean War veteran underwent surgery in a VA facility for a herniated disc he alleged caused pain and weakness in his left lower extremity.⁵ Gardner argued that federal statutes 38 USC § 1151 underlying corresponding VA regulation 38 CFR § 3.358(c)(3) granted disability benefits to veterans injured during VA treatment. The VA denied the disability claim, contending the regulation restricted compensation to veterans whose injury was the fault of the VA; thus, the disability had to have been the result of negligent treatment or an unforeseen therapeutic accident.⁵

The case wound its way through various appeals boards and courts until the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that the statute’s context left no ambiguity, and that any care provided under VA auspices was covered under the statute. What is important for this column is that the justices opined that had ambiguity been present, it would have legally necessitated, “applying the rule that interpretive doubt is to be resolved in the veteran’s favor.”⁵ In Gardner’s case, the courts reaffirmed nearly 80 years of judicial precedent upholding the veteran’s canon.

Thirty years later, Rudisill v McDonough again questioned the veteran’s canon.⁶ Educational benefits, namely the GI Bill, were the issue in this case. Rudisill served during 3 different periods in the US Army, totaling 8 years. Two educational programs overlapped during Rudisill’s tenure in the military: the Montgomery GI Bill and Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act. Rudisill had used a portion of his Montgomery benefits to fund his undergraduate education and now wished to use the more extensive Post-9/11 assistance to finance his graduate degree. Rudisill and the VA disagreed about when his combined benefits would be capped, either at 36 or 48 months. After working its way through appeals courts, SCOTUS was again called upon for judgment.

The justices found that Rudisill qualified under both programs and could use them in any order he wished up to the cap. The majority found no ambiguity in the statute; however, if interpretation was required, the majority of justices indicated that the veteran’s canon would have supported Rudisill. While this sounds like good news for veterans, 2 justices authored a dissenting opinion that questioned the constitutional grounding of the veteran’s canon, noting that the “canon appears to have developed almost by accident.”⁶ The minority opinion suggested that when the veteran’s canon allocates resources to pay for specific veteran benefits, other interests and groups are deprived of those same resources, resulting in potential inequity.⁷

The potential ethical import and clinical impact of striking down the veteran’s canon is serious. It is especially concerning given that in a recent case, the SCOTUS ruling struck down another legal interpretation that also benefited the VA and ultimately veterans: the Chevron deference.⁸ This precedent held that when a legal dispute arises about the meaning of a specific federal agency regulation or policy, the courts should defer to the federal agency’s presumably superior understanding of the matter. The principle places the locus of decision-making with the subject-matter experts of the respective agency rather than the courts.

Ironically, given the legislative purposes of both interpretive principles, their overturning would likely introduce much more uncertainty, variation, and unpredictability in cases involving veteran benefits. This is bad news for both veterans and the VA. Veterans might not prevail as often in court when they have a reasonable claim, leading to more aggressive challenges. In response, the VA would have a heavier and more costly burden of administrative proof to defend sound decisions.⁹ Recently, the VA has tried to reduce the backlog of claims. The inability to have legal recourse to Chevron or Gardener could result in even more delay in adjudicating veterans’ claims that enable them to access benefits and services, already an object of congressional pressure.¹⁰

Courts will continue to debate the issue with another judicial test of the canon on the current SCOTUS docket (Bufkin v McDonough).¹¹ The veteran’s canon was put in place to equalize the power differential between the VA and the veteran: in administrative language, to make it more likely than not that the veteran would prevail when regulations were ambiguous. There are many legal and political rationales for veteran’s canon, including enabling veterans to file claims for service-connected illnesses. The veteran’s cannon helped Vietnam War-era veterans receive VA care while researchers were still studying the sequela of Agent Orange exposure. ¹² The legislative purpose of the veteran’s canon is the same as that of all VA benefits and services commemorated on Veterans Day. As expressed by SCOTUS justices in the wake of World War II, the benefit statutes should be “liberally construed for the benefit of those who left private life to serve their country in its hour of greatest need.”¹³

As Veterans Day approaches, stores and restaurants will offer discounts and free meals to veterans. Children will write thank you letters, and citizens nationwide will raise flags to honor and thank veterans. We can never repay those who lost their life, health, or livelihood in defense of the nation. Since the American Revolution, and in gratitude for that incalculable debt, the US government, on behalf of the American public, has seen fit to grant a host of benefits and services to those who wore the uniform.^2,3 Among the best known are health care, burial services, compensation and pensions, home loans, and the GI Bill.

Less recognized yet arguably essential for the fair and consistent provision of these entitlements is a legal principle: the veteran’s canon. A canon is a system of rules or maxims used to interpret legal instruments, such as statutes. They are not rules but serve as a “principle that guides the interpretation of the text.”⁴ Since I am not a lawyer, I will undoubtedly oversimplify this legal principle, but I hope to get enough right to explain why the veteran’s canon should matter to federal health care professionals.

At its core, the veteran’s canon means that when the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and a veteran have a legal dispute about VA benefits, the courts will give deference to the veteran. Underscoring that any ambiguity in the statute is resolved in the veteran’s favor, the canon is known in legal circles as the Gardner deference. This is a reference to a 1994 case in which a Korean War veteran underwent surgery in a VA facility for a herniated disc he alleged caused pain and weakness in his left lower extremity.⁵ Gardner argued that federal statutes 38 USC § 1151 underlying corresponding VA regulation 38 CFR § 3.358(c)(3) granted disability benefits to veterans injured during VA treatment. The VA denied the disability claim, contending the regulation restricted compensation to veterans whose injury was the fault of the VA; thus, the disability had to have been the result of negligent treatment or an unforeseen therapeutic accident.⁵

The case wound its way through various appeals boards and courts until the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that the statute’s context left no ambiguity, and that any care provided under VA auspices was covered under the statute. What is important for this column is that the justices opined that had ambiguity been present, it would have legally necessitated, “applying the rule that interpretive doubt is to be resolved in the veteran’s favor.”⁵ In Gardner’s case, the courts reaffirmed nearly 80 years of judicial precedent upholding the veteran’s canon.

Thirty years later, Rudisill v McDonough again questioned the veteran’s canon.⁶ Educational benefits, namely the GI Bill, were the issue in this case. Rudisill served during 3 different periods in the US Army, totaling 8 years. Two educational programs overlapped during Rudisill’s tenure in the military: the Montgomery GI Bill and Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act. Rudisill had used a portion of his Montgomery benefits to fund his undergraduate education and now wished to use the more extensive Post-9/11 assistance to finance his graduate degree. Rudisill and the VA disagreed about when his combined benefits would be capped, either at 36 or 48 months. After working its way through appeals courts, SCOTUS was again called upon for judgment.

The justices found that Rudisill qualified under both programs and could use them in any order he wished up to the cap. The majority found no ambiguity in the statute; however, if interpretation was required, the majority of justices indicated that the veteran’s canon would have supported Rudisill. While this sounds like good news for veterans, 2 justices authored a dissenting opinion that questioned the constitutional grounding of the veteran’s canon, noting that the “canon appears to have developed almost by accident.”⁶ The minority opinion suggested that when the veteran’s canon allocates resources to pay for specific veteran benefits, other interests and groups are deprived of those same resources, resulting in potential inequity.⁷

The potential ethical import and clinical impact of striking down the veteran’s canon is serious. It is especially concerning given that in a recent case, the SCOTUS ruling struck down another legal interpretation that also benefited the VA and ultimately veterans: the Chevron deference.⁸ This precedent held that when a legal dispute arises about the meaning of a specific federal agency regulation or policy, the courts should defer to the federal agency’s presumably superior understanding of the matter. The principle places the locus of decision-making with the subject-matter experts of the respective agency rather than the courts.

Ironically, given the legislative purposes of both interpretive principles, their overturning would likely introduce much more uncertainty, variation, and unpredictability in cases involving veteran benefits. This is bad news for both veterans and the VA. Veterans might not prevail as often in court when they have a reasonable claim, leading to more aggressive challenges. In response, the VA would have a heavier and more costly burden of administrative proof to defend sound decisions.⁹ Recently, the VA has tried to reduce the backlog of claims. The inability to have legal recourse to Chevron or Gardener could result in even more delay in adjudicating veterans’ claims that enable them to access benefits and services, already an object of congressional pressure.¹⁰

Courts will continue to debate the issue with another judicial test of the canon on the current SCOTUS docket (Bufkin v McDonough).¹¹ The veteran’s canon was put in place to equalize the power differential between the VA and the veteran: in administrative language, to make it more likely than not that the veteran would prevail when regulations were ambiguous. There are many legal and political rationales for veteran’s canon, including enabling veterans to file claims for service-connected illnesses. The veteran’s cannon helped Vietnam War-era veterans receive VA care while researchers were still studying the sequela of Agent Orange exposure. ¹² The legislative purpose of the veteran’s canon is the same as that of all VA benefits and services commemorated on Veterans Day. As expressed by SCOTUS justices in the wake of World War II, the benefit statutes should be “liberally construed for the benefit of those who left private life to serve their country in its hour of greatest need.”¹³

The COVID-19 pandemic affected diverse workplaces globally, leading to temporary and permanent changes across the health care landscape. Included among the impacted areas of care were epilepsy and electroencephalogram (EEG) clinicians and services. Surveys among epilepsy specialists and neurophysiologists conducted at the onset of the pandemic to evaluate working conditions include analyses from the American Epilepsy Society (AES), the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC), the International League Against Epilepsy, and an Italian national survey.^1-4 These investigations revealed reductions in epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) admissions (23% decline), epilepsy surgery (6% decline), inpatient EEG (22% of respondents reported decline), and patients having difficulty accessing epilepsy professionals (28% of respondents reported decline) or obtaining medications (20% of respondents reported decline).^1-3

While such research provided evidence for changes to epilepsy care in 2020, there are limited data on subsequent adaptations during the pandemic. These studies did not incorporate data on the spread of COVID-19 or administrative workload numbers to analyze service delivery beyond self reports. This study aimed to address this gap in the literature by highlighting results from longitudinal national surveys conducted at the Epilepsy Centers of Excellence (ECoE), a specialty care service within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which annually serves > 9 million veterans.⁵ The ECoE represents epileptologists and neurophysiologists across the United States at the 17 primary facilities that were established at the time of this survey (2 ECoEs have been added since survey completion) in 4 geographical regions and for which other regional facilities refer patients for diagnostic services or specialty care.⁶

National surveys were conducted among the ECoE directors regarding adaptations made from May 2020 to June 2022 to provide a comprehensive account of limitations they experienced and how adjustments have been made to improve patient care. Survey responses were compared to administrative workload numbers and COVID-19 spread data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to provide a comprehensive analysis of performance during the pandemic.

METHODS

Data were collected as part of a quality improvement initiative by the VHA ECoE; institutional review board approval was not required. An 18-item survey covering 5 broad domains was sent to ECoE directors 4 separate times to accumulate data from 4 time periods: May to June 2020 (T1); December 2020 to February 2021 (T2); July to August 2021 (T3); and June to July 2022 (T4). These periods correspond to the following phases of the pandemic: T1, onset of pandemic; T2, vaccine availability; T3, Delta variant predominant; T4, Omicron variant predominant.

Data on the spread of COVID-19 were collected from the CDC archived dataset, US COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission Historical Changes (Table 1).⁷ Administrative workload (patient counts) for EEG, EMU, and outpatient clinics were extracted from VHA administrative databases for the participating sites for the months prior to each survey: T1, April 2020; T2, November 2020; T3, June 2021; and T4, May 2022 (Table 2).

Survey Structure and Content

The survey was developed by the ECoE and was not validated prior to its use due to the time-sensitive nature of gathering information during the pandemic. The first survey (T1) was an emailed spreadsheet with open-ended questions to gauge availability of services (ie, outpatient clinic, EEG, EMU), assess whether safety precautions were being introduced, and understand whether national or local guidelines were thought to be helpful. Responses from this and subsequent surveys were standardized into yes/no and multiple choice formats. Subsequent surveys were administered online using a Research Electronic Data Capture tool.^8,9

Availability of outpatient epilepsy services across the 4 time periods were categorized as unlimited (in-person with no restrictions), limited (in-person with restrictions), planned (not currently performed but scheduled for the near future), and unavailable (no in-person services offered) (eAppendices 1-6, available in article PDF).

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were performed to compare survey responses to workload and CDC data on COVID-19 community spread. The following associations were examined: (1) CDC COVID-19 spread vs respondents’ perception of spread; (2) respondents’ perception of spread vs availability of services; (3) CDC COVID-19 spread vs availability of services; (4) respondents’ perception of spread vs workload; and (5) CDC COVID-19 spread vs workload. Availability of services was dichotomized for analyses, with limited or fully available services classified as available. As services were mostly open at T3 regardless of the spread of the virus, and the CDC COVID-19 spread classification for all sites was severe or high at T2 and T4, corresponding associations were not tested at these time points. For associations 1 through 3, Fisher exact tests were used; for associations 4 and 5, Mann-Whitney U tests (where the COVID-19 spread fell into 2 categories) and Kruskal-Wallis tests (for 3 categories of COVID-19 spread) were performed. All tests were 2-tailed and performed at 0.05 error rate. Bonferroni corrections were applied to adjust P values for multiple hypotheses tests.

RESULTS

From the 17 sites invited, responses at each time point were obtained from 13 (T1),17 (T2), 15 (T3), and 16 (T4) centers. There was no significant association between self-reported COVID-19 spread and CDC classification of COVID spread. There were no associations between COVID-19 community spread (respondent reported or CDC severity level) and outpatient clinic availability (self-reported or workload captured). At T3, a positive association was found between the CDC spread level and workload (P = .008), but this was not significant after Bonferroni correction (P = .06).

EEG availability surpassed EMU availability at all time points, although EMU services made some recovery at T3 and T4. No associations were found between COVID-19 community spread (self-reported or CDC severity level) and outpatient EEG or EMU availability (self-reported or workload captured). At T3, there was a positive association between EEG workload and CDC COVID-19 severity level (P = .04), but this was not significant after Bonferroni correction (P = .30). 

For outpatient EEG, staff and patient mask use were universally implemented by T2, while the use of full personal protective equipment (PPE) occurred at a subset of sites (T2, 6/17 [35%]; T3, 3/15 [20%]; T4: 4/16 [25%]). COVID-19 testing was rarely implemented prior to outpatient EEG (T1, 0 sites; T2, 1 site; T3, 1 site; T4, 0 sites). Within the EMU, safety precautions including COVID-19 testing, patient mask usage, staff mask usage, and aerosolization demonstrated a sustained majority usage across the 4 surveys.

National and Local Guidelines

The open-ended survey at T1 asked site directors, “Should there be national recommendations on how EEGs and related procedures should be done during the pandemic or should this be left to local conditions?” Responses were mixed, with 5 respondents desiring a national standard, 4 respondents favoring a local response, and 4 respondents believing a national standard should be in place but with modifications based on local outbreak levels and needs.

Surveys performed at T2 through T4 asked, “Which of the following do you feel was/will be helpful in adapting to COVID-19–related changes?” Overall, there was substantial agreement that guidelines were helpful. Most sites anticipated permanent changes in enhanced safety precautions and telehealth.

DISCUSSION

This longitudinal study across 4 time points describes how epilepsy services within the VHA and ECoE adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. The first survey, conducted 2 months after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, allowed a comparison with other concurrent US national surveys.^1,2,10 The subsequent surveys describe longitudinal adaptations to balance patient and staff safety with service availability and is a unique feature of the current report. Results demonstrate flexibility and adaptability by the ECoEs surveyed, which surprisingly did not show significant associations between CDC COVID-19 spread data and administrative workload data.

Trends in Availability of Services

The most significant impact of COVID-19 restrictions was during T1. There were no significant relationships between service availability/workload and objective CDC COVID-19 spread levels or subjective self-reported COVID-19 spread. Respondents’ perceptions of local COVID-19 spread showed no association with CDC COVID-19 spread data. It appears that subjective perception of spread may be unreliable and factors other than actual or perceived COVID-19 spread were likely driving patterns for service availability.

In-person outpatient visits were most impacted at T1, similar to other civilian surveys, with only 1 site reporting in-person outpatient visits without limitations.^1,2 These numbers significantly changed by T2, with all sites offering either limited or unlimited in-person visits. While the surveys did not evaluate factors leading to this rapid recovery, it may be related to the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations within the VHA during this time.¹¹ The US Department of Veterans Affairs was the first federal agency to mandate employee vaccination.¹² By the most recent time point (T4), all responding sites offered outpatient visits. Outpatient EEGs followed a similar trend, with T1 being the most restrictive and full, unrestricted outpatient EEGs available by T3. 

Fiscal year (FY) trends from ECoE annual reports suggest that encounters slowly recovered over the course of the pandemic. In FY 2019 there were 13,143 outpatient encounters and 6394 EEGs, which dropped to 8097 outpatient encounters and 4432 EEGs in FY 2020 before rising to 8489 outpatient encounters and 5604 EEGs in FY 2021 and 9772 outpatient encounters and 5062 EEGs in FY 2022. Thus, while clinicians described availability of services, patients may have remained hesitant or were otherwise unable to fulfill in-person appointments. The increased availability of home EEG (145 encounter days in 2021 and 436 encounter days in 2022) may be filling this gap. 

In contrast to outpatient clinics and EEG, EMU availability showed relatively slower reimplementation. In the last survey, about 30% of sites were still not offering EMU or had limited services. Early trends regarding reduced staffing and patient reluctance for elective admission cited in other surveys may have also affected EMU availability within the VHA.^2,13 Consistent with trends in availability, ECoE annual report data suggest EMU patient participation was about one-half of prepandemic rates: 3069 encounters in FY 2019 dropped to 1614 encounters in 2020. By 2021, rates were about two-thirds of prepandemic rates with 2058 encounters in 2021 and 2101 encounters in 2022.

Early survey results (T1) from this study echo trends from other surveys. In the AES survey (April to June 2020), about a quarter of respondents (22%) reported doing fewer EEG studies than usual. The Italian national survey (April 2020) revealed reduced presurgical evaluations (81%), ambulatory EEG (78%), standard EEG (5%) and long-term EEG (32%).⁴ In the NAEC survey (end of 2020)—which roughly corresponded to T2—outpatient EEGs were still < 75% of pre-COVID levels in one-half of the centers.

National and Local Guidelines

Both national and local guidelines were perceived as useful by most respondents, with national guidelines being more beneficial. This aligns with the NAEC survey, where there was a perceived need for detailed recommendations for PPE and COVID-19 testing of patients, visitors, and staff. Based on national and local guidelines, ECoE implemented safety procedures, as reflected in responses. Staff masking procedures appeared to be the most widely adopted for all services, while the use of full PPE waned as the pandemic progressed. COVID-19 testing was rarely used for routine outpatient visits but common in EMU admissions. This is similar to a survey conducted by the American Academy of Neurology which found full PPE implementation intermittently in outpatient settings and more frequently in inpatient settings.¹⁴

Telehealth Attitudes

While most sites anticipated permanent implementation of safety precautions and telehealth, the latter was consistently reported as more likely to be sustained. The VHA had a large and well-developed system of telehealth services that considerably predated the pandemic.^15,16 Through this established infrastructure, remote services were quickly increased across the VHA.^17-19 This telehealth structure was supplemented by the ability of VHA clinicians to practice across state lines, following a 2018 federal rule.²⁰ The AES survey noted the VHA ECoE's longstanding experience with telehealth as a model for telemedicine use in providing direct patient care, remote EEG analysis, and clinician-to-clinician consultation.¹

Trends in the number of telehealth patients seen, observed through patterns in ECoE annual reports are consistent with positive views toward this method of service provision. Specifically, these annual reports capture trends in Video Telehealth Clinic (local station), Video Telehealth Clinic (different station), Home Video Telehealth, Telephone Clinic, and eConsults. Though video telehealth at in-person stations had a precipitous drop in 2020 that continued to wane in subsequent years (898 encounters in 2019; 455 encounters in 2020; 90 encounters in 2021; 88 encounters in 2022), use of home video telehealth rose over time (143 encounters in 2019; 1003 encounters in 2020; 3206 encounters in 2021; 3315 encounters in 2022). Use of telephone services rose drastically in 2020 but has since become a less frequently used service method (2636 in 2019; 5923 in 2020; 5319 in 2021; 3704 in 2022).

Limitations

While the survey encouraged a high response rate, this limited its scope and interpretability. While the availability of services was evaluated, the underlying reasons were not queried. Follow-up questions about barriers to reopening may have allowed for a better understanding of why some services, such as EMU, continued to operate suboptimally later in the pandemic. Similarly, asking about unique strategies or barriers for telehealth would have allowed for a better understanding of its current and future use. We hypothesize that staffing changes during the pandemic may have influenced the availability of services, but changes to staffing were not assessed via the survey and were not readily available via other sources (eg, ECoE annual reports) at the time of publication. An additional limitation is the lack of comparable surveys in the literature for time points T2 to T4, as most analogous surveys were performed early in 2020.

Conclusions

This longitudinal study performed at 4 time points during the COVID-19 pandemic is the first to offer a comprehensive picture of changes to epilepsy and EEG services over time, given that other similar surveys lacked follow-up. Results reveal a significant limitation of services at VHA ECoE shortly after the onset of the pandemic, with return to near-complete operational status 2 years later. While safety precautions and telehealth are predicted to continue, telehealth is perceived as a more permanent change in services.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected diverse workplaces globally, leading to temporary and permanent changes across the health care landscape. Included among the impacted areas of care were epilepsy and electroencephalogram (EEG) clinicians and services. Surveys among epilepsy specialists and neurophysiologists conducted at the onset of the pandemic to evaluate working conditions include analyses from the American Epilepsy Society (AES), the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC), the International League Against Epilepsy, and an Italian national survey.^1-4 These investigations revealed reductions in epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) admissions (23% decline), epilepsy surgery (6% decline), inpatient EEG (22% of respondents reported decline), and patients having difficulty accessing epilepsy professionals (28% of respondents reported decline) or obtaining medications (20% of respondents reported decline).^1-3

While such research provided evidence for changes to epilepsy care in 2020, there are limited data on subsequent adaptations during the pandemic. These studies did not incorporate data on the spread of COVID-19 or administrative workload numbers to analyze service delivery beyond self reports. This study aimed to address this gap in the literature by highlighting results from longitudinal national surveys conducted at the Epilepsy Centers of Excellence (ECoE), a specialty care service within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which annually serves > 9 million veterans.⁵ The ECoE represents epileptologists and neurophysiologists across the United States at the 17 primary facilities that were established at the time of this survey (2 ECoEs have been added since survey completion) in 4 geographical regions and for which other regional facilities refer patients for diagnostic services or specialty care.⁶

National surveys were conducted among the ECoE directors regarding adaptations made from May 2020 to June 2022 to provide a comprehensive account of limitations they experienced and how adjustments have been made to improve patient care. Survey responses were compared to administrative workload numbers and COVID-19 spread data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to provide a comprehensive analysis of performance during the pandemic.

METHODS

Data were collected as part of a quality improvement initiative by the VHA ECoE; institutional review board approval was not required. An 18-item survey covering 5 broad domains was sent to ECoE directors 4 separate times to accumulate data from 4 time periods: May to June 2020 (T1); December 2020 to February 2021 (T2); July to August 2021 (T3); and June to July 2022 (T4). These periods correspond to the following phases of the pandemic: T1, onset of pandemic; T2, vaccine availability; T3, Delta variant predominant; T4, Omicron variant predominant.

Data on the spread of COVID-19 were collected from the CDC archived dataset, US COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission Historical Changes (Table 1).⁷ Administrative workload (patient counts) for EEG, EMU, and outpatient clinics were extracted from VHA administrative databases for the participating sites for the months prior to each survey: T1, April 2020; T2, November 2020; T3, June 2021; and T4, May 2022 (Table 2).

Survey Structure and Content

The survey was developed by the ECoE and was not validated prior to its use due to the time-sensitive nature of gathering information during the pandemic. The first survey (T1) was an emailed spreadsheet with open-ended questions to gauge availability of services (ie, outpatient clinic, EEG, EMU), assess whether safety precautions were being introduced, and understand whether national or local guidelines were thought to be helpful. Responses from this and subsequent surveys were standardized into yes/no and multiple choice formats. Subsequent surveys were administered online using a Research Electronic Data Capture tool.^8,9

Availability of outpatient epilepsy services across the 4 time periods were categorized as unlimited (in-person with no restrictions), limited (in-person with restrictions), planned (not currently performed but scheduled for the near future), and unavailable (no in-person services offered) (eAppendices 1-6, available in article PDF).

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were performed to compare survey responses to workload and CDC data on COVID-19 community spread. The following associations were examined: (1) CDC COVID-19 spread vs respondents’ perception of spread; (2) respondents’ perception of spread vs availability of services; (3) CDC COVID-19 spread vs availability of services; (4) respondents’ perception of spread vs workload; and (5) CDC COVID-19 spread vs workload. Availability of services was dichotomized for analyses, with limited or fully available services classified as available. As services were mostly open at T3 regardless of the spread of the virus, and the CDC COVID-19 spread classification for all sites was severe or high at T2 and T4, corresponding associations were not tested at these time points. For associations 1 through 3, Fisher exact tests were used; for associations 4 and 5, Mann-Whitney U tests (where the COVID-19 spread fell into 2 categories) and Kruskal-Wallis tests (for 3 categories of COVID-19 spread) were performed. All tests were 2-tailed and performed at 0.05 error rate. Bonferroni corrections were applied to adjust P values for multiple hypotheses tests.

RESULTS

From the 17 sites invited, responses at each time point were obtained from 13 (T1),17 (T2), 15 (T3), and 16 (T4) centers. There was no significant association between self-reported COVID-19 spread and CDC classification of COVID spread. There were no associations between COVID-19 community spread (respondent reported or CDC severity level) and outpatient clinic availability (self-reported or workload captured). At T3, a positive association was found between the CDC spread level and workload (P = .008), but this was not significant after Bonferroni correction (P = .06).

EEG availability surpassed EMU availability at all time points, although EMU services made some recovery at T3 and T4. No associations were found between COVID-19 community spread (self-reported or CDC severity level) and outpatient EEG or EMU availability (self-reported or workload captured). At T3, there was a positive association between EEG workload and CDC COVID-19 severity level (P = .04), but this was not significant after Bonferroni correction (P = .30). 

For outpatient EEG, staff and patient mask use were universally implemented by T2, while the use of full personal protective equipment (PPE) occurred at a subset of sites (T2, 6/17 [35%]; T3, 3/15 [20%]; T4: 4/16 [25%]). COVID-19 testing was rarely implemented prior to outpatient EEG (T1, 0 sites; T2, 1 site; T3, 1 site; T4, 0 sites). Within the EMU, safety precautions including COVID-19 testing, patient mask usage, staff mask usage, and aerosolization demonstrated a sustained majority usage across the 4 surveys.

National and Local Guidelines

The open-ended survey at T1 asked site directors, “Should there be national recommendations on how EEGs and related procedures should be done during the pandemic or should this be left to local conditions?” Responses were mixed, with 5 respondents desiring a national standard, 4 respondents favoring a local response, and 4 respondents believing a national standard should be in place but with modifications based on local outbreak levels and needs.

Surveys performed at T2 through T4 asked, “Which of the following do you feel was/will be helpful in adapting to COVID-19–related changes?” Overall, there was substantial agreement that guidelines were helpful. Most sites anticipated permanent changes in enhanced safety precautions and telehealth.

DISCUSSION

This longitudinal study across 4 time points describes how epilepsy services within the VHA and ECoE adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. The first survey, conducted 2 months after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, allowed a comparison with other concurrent US national surveys.^1,2,10 The subsequent surveys describe longitudinal adaptations to balance patient and staff safety with service availability and is a unique feature of the current report. Results demonstrate flexibility and adaptability by the ECoEs surveyed, which surprisingly did not show significant associations between CDC COVID-19 spread data and administrative workload data.

Trends in Availability of Services

The most significant impact of COVID-19 restrictions was during T1. There were no significant relationships between service availability/workload and objective CDC COVID-19 spread levels or subjective self-reported COVID-19 spread. Respondents’ perceptions of local COVID-19 spread showed no association with CDC COVID-19 spread data. It appears that subjective perception of spread may be unreliable and factors other than actual or perceived COVID-19 spread were likely driving patterns for service availability.

In-person outpatient visits were most impacted at T1, similar to other civilian surveys, with only 1 site reporting in-person outpatient visits without limitations.^1,2 These numbers significantly changed by T2, with all sites offering either limited or unlimited in-person visits. While the surveys did not evaluate factors leading to this rapid recovery, it may be related to the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations within the VHA during this time.¹¹ The US Department of Veterans Affairs was the first federal agency to mandate employee vaccination.¹² By the most recent time point (T4), all responding sites offered outpatient visits. Outpatient EEGs followed a similar trend, with T1 being the most restrictive and full, unrestricted outpatient EEGs available by T3. 

Fiscal year (FY) trends from ECoE annual reports suggest that encounters slowly recovered over the course of the pandemic. In FY 2019 there were 13,143 outpatient encounters and 6394 EEGs, which dropped to 8097 outpatient encounters and 4432 EEGs in FY 2020 before rising to 8489 outpatient encounters and 5604 EEGs in FY 2021 and 9772 outpatient encounters and 5062 EEGs in FY 2022. Thus, while clinicians described availability of services, patients may have remained hesitant or were otherwise unable to fulfill in-person appointments. The increased availability of home EEG (145 encounter days in 2021 and 436 encounter days in 2022) may be filling this gap. 

In contrast to outpatient clinics and EEG, EMU availability showed relatively slower reimplementation. In the last survey, about 30% of sites were still not offering EMU or had limited services. Early trends regarding reduced staffing and patient reluctance for elective admission cited in other surveys may have also affected EMU availability within the VHA.^2,13 Consistent with trends in availability, ECoE annual report data suggest EMU patient participation was about one-half of prepandemic rates: 3069 encounters in FY 2019 dropped to 1614 encounters in 2020. By 2021, rates were about two-thirds of prepandemic rates with 2058 encounters in 2021 and 2101 encounters in 2022.

Early survey results (T1) from this study echo trends from other surveys. In the AES survey (April to June 2020), about a quarter of respondents (22%) reported doing fewer EEG studies than usual. The Italian national survey (April 2020) revealed reduced presurgical evaluations (81%), ambulatory EEG (78%), standard EEG (5%) and long-term EEG (32%).⁴ In the NAEC survey (end of 2020)—which roughly corresponded to T2—outpatient EEGs were still < 75% of pre-COVID levels in one-half of the centers.

National and Local Guidelines

Both national and local guidelines were perceived as useful by most respondents, with national guidelines being more beneficial. This aligns with the NAEC survey, where there was a perceived need for detailed recommendations for PPE and COVID-19 testing of patients, visitors, and staff. Based on national and local guidelines, ECoE implemented safety procedures, as reflected in responses. Staff masking procedures appeared to be the most widely adopted for all services, while the use of full PPE waned as the pandemic progressed. COVID-19 testing was rarely used for routine outpatient visits but common in EMU admissions. This is similar to a survey conducted by the American Academy of Neurology which found full PPE implementation intermittently in outpatient settings and more frequently in inpatient settings.¹⁴

Telehealth Attitudes

While most sites anticipated permanent implementation of safety precautions and telehealth, the latter was consistently reported as more likely to be sustained. The VHA had a large and well-developed system of telehealth services that considerably predated the pandemic.^15,16 Through this established infrastructure, remote services were quickly increased across the VHA.^17-19 This telehealth structure was supplemented by the ability of VHA clinicians to practice across state lines, following a 2018 federal rule.²⁰ The AES survey noted the VHA ECoE's longstanding experience with telehealth as a model for telemedicine use in providing direct patient care, remote EEG analysis, and clinician-to-clinician consultation.¹

Trends in the number of telehealth patients seen, observed through patterns in ECoE annual reports are consistent with positive views toward this method of service provision. Specifically, these annual reports capture trends in Video Telehealth Clinic (local station), Video Telehealth Clinic (different station), Home Video Telehealth, Telephone Clinic, and eConsults. Though video telehealth at in-person stations had a precipitous drop in 2020 that continued to wane in subsequent years (898 encounters in 2019; 455 encounters in 2020; 90 encounters in 2021; 88 encounters in 2022), use of home video telehealth rose over time (143 encounters in 2019; 1003 encounters in 2020; 3206 encounters in 2021; 3315 encounters in 2022). Use of telephone services rose drastically in 2020 but has since become a less frequently used service method (2636 in 2019; 5923 in 2020; 5319 in 2021; 3704 in 2022).

Limitations

While the survey encouraged a high response rate, this limited its scope and interpretability. While the availability of services was evaluated, the underlying reasons were not queried. Follow-up questions about barriers to reopening may have allowed for a better understanding of why some services, such as EMU, continued to operate suboptimally later in the pandemic. Similarly, asking about unique strategies or barriers for telehealth would have allowed for a better understanding of its current and future use. We hypothesize that staffing changes during the pandemic may have influenced the availability of services, but changes to staffing were not assessed via the survey and were not readily available via other sources (eg, ECoE annual reports) at the time of publication. An additional limitation is the lack of comparable surveys in the literature for time points T2 to T4, as most analogous surveys were performed early in 2020.

Conclusions

This longitudinal study performed at 4 time points during the COVID-19 pandemic is the first to offer a comprehensive picture of changes to epilepsy and EEG services over time, given that other similar surveys lacked follow-up. Results reveal a significant limitation of services at VHA ECoE shortly after the onset of the pandemic, with return to near-complete operational status 2 years later. While safety precautions and telehealth are predicted to continue, telehealth is perceived as a more permanent change in services.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected diverse workplaces globally, leading to temporary and permanent changes across the health care landscape. Included among the impacted areas of care were epilepsy and electroencephalogram (EEG) clinicians and services. Surveys among epilepsy specialists and neurophysiologists conducted at the onset of the pandemic to evaluate working conditions include analyses from the American Epilepsy Society (AES), the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC), the International League Against Epilepsy, and an Italian national survey.^1-4 These investigations revealed reductions in epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) admissions (23% decline), epilepsy surgery (6% decline), inpatient EEG (22% of respondents reported decline), and patients having difficulty accessing epilepsy professionals (28% of respondents reported decline) or obtaining medications (20% of respondents reported decline).^1-3

While such research provided evidence for changes to epilepsy care in 2020, there are limited data on subsequent adaptations during the pandemic. These studies did not incorporate data on the spread of COVID-19 or administrative workload numbers to analyze service delivery beyond self reports. This study aimed to address this gap in the literature by highlighting results from longitudinal national surveys conducted at the Epilepsy Centers of Excellence (ECoE), a specialty care service within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which annually serves > 9 million veterans.⁵ The ECoE represents epileptologists and neurophysiologists across the United States at the 17 primary facilities that were established at the time of this survey (2 ECoEs have been added since survey completion) in 4 geographical regions and for which other regional facilities refer patients for diagnostic services or specialty care.⁶

National surveys were conducted among the ECoE directors regarding adaptations made from May 2020 to June 2022 to provide a comprehensive account of limitations they experienced and how adjustments have been made to improve patient care. Survey responses were compared to administrative workload numbers and COVID-19 spread data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to provide a comprehensive analysis of performance during the pandemic.

METHODS

Data were collected as part of a quality improvement initiative by the VHA ECoE; institutional review board approval was not required. An 18-item survey covering 5 broad domains was sent to ECoE directors 4 separate times to accumulate data from 4 time periods: May to June 2020 (T1); December 2020 to February 2021 (T2); July to August 2021 (T3); and June to July 2022 (T4). These periods correspond to the following phases of the pandemic: T1, onset of pandemic; T2, vaccine availability; T3, Delta variant predominant; T4, Omicron variant predominant.

Data on the spread of COVID-19 were collected from the CDC archived dataset, US COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission Historical Changes (Table 1).⁷ Administrative workload (patient counts) for EEG, EMU, and outpatient clinics were extracted from VHA administrative databases for the participating sites for the months prior to each survey: T1, April 2020; T2, November 2020; T3, June 2021; and T4, May 2022 (Table 2).

Survey Structure and Content

The survey was developed by the ECoE and was not validated prior to its use due to the time-sensitive nature of gathering information during the pandemic. The first survey (T1) was an emailed spreadsheet with open-ended questions to gauge availability of services (ie, outpatient clinic, EEG, EMU), assess whether safety precautions were being introduced, and understand whether national or local guidelines were thought to be helpful. Responses from this and subsequent surveys were standardized into yes/no and multiple choice formats. Subsequent surveys were administered online using a Research Electronic Data Capture tool.^8,9

Availability of outpatient epilepsy services across the 4 time periods were categorized as unlimited (in-person with no restrictions), limited (in-person with restrictions), planned (not currently performed but scheduled for the near future), and unavailable (no in-person services offered) (eAppendices 1-6, available in article PDF).

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were performed to compare survey responses to workload and CDC data on COVID-19 community spread. The following associations were examined: (1) CDC COVID-19 spread vs respondents’ perception of spread; (2) respondents’ perception of spread vs availability of services; (3) CDC COVID-19 spread vs availability of services; (4) respondents’ perception of spread vs workload; and (5) CDC COVID-19 spread vs workload. Availability of services was dichotomized for analyses, with limited or fully available services classified as available. As services were mostly open at T3 regardless of the spread of the virus, and the CDC COVID-19 spread classification for all sites was severe or high at T2 and T4, corresponding associations were not tested at these time points. For associations 1 through 3, Fisher exact tests were used; for associations 4 and 5, Mann-Whitney U tests (where the COVID-19 spread fell into 2 categories) and Kruskal-Wallis tests (for 3 categories of COVID-19 spread) were performed. All tests were 2-tailed and performed at 0.05 error rate. Bonferroni corrections were applied to adjust P values for multiple hypotheses tests.

RESULTS

From the 17 sites invited, responses at each time point were obtained from 13 (T1),17 (T2), 15 (T3), and 16 (T4) centers. There was no significant association between self-reported COVID-19 spread and CDC classification of COVID spread. There were no associations between COVID-19 community spread (respondent reported or CDC severity level) and outpatient clinic availability (self-reported or workload captured). At T3, a positive association was found between the CDC spread level and workload (P = .008), but this was not significant after Bonferroni correction (P = .06).

EEG availability surpassed EMU availability at all time points, although EMU services made some recovery at T3 and T4. No associations were found between COVID-19 community spread (self-reported or CDC severity level) and outpatient EEG or EMU availability (self-reported or workload captured). At T3, there was a positive association between EEG workload and CDC COVID-19 severity level (P = .04), but this was not significant after Bonferroni correction (P = .30). 

For outpatient EEG, staff and patient mask use were universally implemented by T2, while the use of full personal protective equipment (PPE) occurred at a subset of sites (T2, 6/17 [35%]; T3, 3/15 [20%]; T4: 4/16 [25%]). COVID-19 testing was rarely implemented prior to outpatient EEG (T1, 0 sites; T2, 1 site; T3, 1 site; T4, 0 sites). Within the EMU, safety precautions including COVID-19 testing, patient mask usage, staff mask usage, and aerosolization demonstrated a sustained majority usage across the 4 surveys.

National and Local Guidelines

The open-ended survey at T1 asked site directors, “Should there be national recommendations on how EEGs and related procedures should be done during the pandemic or should this be left to local conditions?” Responses were mixed, with 5 respondents desiring a national standard, 4 respondents favoring a local response, and 4 respondents believing a national standard should be in place but with modifications based on local outbreak levels and needs.

Surveys performed at T2 through T4 asked, “Which of the following do you feel was/will be helpful in adapting to COVID-19–related changes?” Overall, there was substantial agreement that guidelines were helpful. Most sites anticipated permanent changes in enhanced safety precautions and telehealth.

DISCUSSION

This longitudinal study across 4 time points describes how epilepsy services within the VHA and ECoE adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. The first survey, conducted 2 months after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, allowed a comparison with other concurrent US national surveys.^1,2,10 The subsequent surveys describe longitudinal adaptations to balance patient and staff safety with service availability and is a unique feature of the current report. Results demonstrate flexibility and adaptability by the ECoEs surveyed, which surprisingly did not show significant associations between CDC COVID-19 spread data and administrative workload data.

Trends in Availability of Services

The most significant impact of COVID-19 restrictions was during T1. There were no significant relationships between service availability/workload and objective CDC COVID-19 spread levels or subjective self-reported COVID-19 spread. Respondents’ perceptions of local COVID-19 spread showed no association with CDC COVID-19 spread data. It appears that subjective perception of spread may be unreliable and factors other than actual or perceived COVID-19 spread were likely driving patterns for service availability.

In-person outpatient visits were most impacted at T1, similar to other civilian surveys, with only 1 site reporting in-person outpatient visits without limitations.^1,2 These numbers significantly changed by T2, with all sites offering either limited or unlimited in-person visits. While the surveys did not evaluate factors leading to this rapid recovery, it may be related to the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations within the VHA during this time.¹¹ The US Department of Veterans Affairs was the first federal agency to mandate employee vaccination.¹² By the most recent time point (T4), all responding sites offered outpatient visits. Outpatient EEGs followed a similar trend, with T1 being the most restrictive and full, unrestricted outpatient EEGs available by T3. 

Fiscal year (FY) trends from ECoE annual reports suggest that encounters slowly recovered over the course of the pandemic. In FY 2019 there were 13,143 outpatient encounters and 6394 EEGs, which dropped to 8097 outpatient encounters and 4432 EEGs in FY 2020 before rising to 8489 outpatient encounters and 5604 EEGs in FY 2021 and 9772 outpatient encounters and 5062 EEGs in FY 2022. Thus, while clinicians described availability of services, patients may have remained hesitant or were otherwise unable to fulfill in-person appointments. The increased availability of home EEG (145 encounter days in 2021 and 436 encounter days in 2022) may be filling this gap. 

In contrast to outpatient clinics and EEG, EMU availability showed relatively slower reimplementation. In the last survey, about 30% of sites were still not offering EMU or had limited services. Early trends regarding reduced staffing and patient reluctance for elective admission cited in other surveys may have also affected EMU availability within the VHA.^2,13 Consistent with trends in availability, ECoE annual report data suggest EMU patient participation was about one-half of prepandemic rates: 3069 encounters in FY 2019 dropped to 1614 encounters in 2020. By 2021, rates were about two-thirds of prepandemic rates with 2058 encounters in 2021 and 2101 encounters in 2022.

Early survey results (T1) from this study echo trends from other surveys. In the AES survey (April to June 2020), about a quarter of respondents (22%) reported doing fewer EEG studies than usual. The Italian national survey (April 2020) revealed reduced presurgical evaluations (81%), ambulatory EEG (78%), standard EEG (5%) and long-term EEG (32%).⁴ In the NAEC survey (end of 2020)—which roughly corresponded to T2—outpatient EEGs were still < 75% of pre-COVID levels in one-half of the centers.

National and Local Guidelines

Both national and local guidelines were perceived as useful by most respondents, with national guidelines being more beneficial. This aligns with the NAEC survey, where there was a perceived need for detailed recommendations for PPE and COVID-19 testing of patients, visitors, and staff. Based on national and local guidelines, ECoE implemented safety procedures, as reflected in responses. Staff masking procedures appeared to be the most widely adopted for all services, while the use of full PPE waned as the pandemic progressed. COVID-19 testing was rarely used for routine outpatient visits but common in EMU admissions. This is similar to a survey conducted by the American Academy of Neurology which found full PPE implementation intermittently in outpatient settings and more frequently in inpatient settings.¹⁴

Telehealth Attitudes

While most sites anticipated permanent implementation of safety precautions and telehealth, the latter was consistently reported as more likely to be sustained. The VHA had a large and well-developed system of telehealth services that considerably predated the pandemic.^15,16 Through this established infrastructure, remote services were quickly increased across the VHA.^17-19 This telehealth structure was supplemented by the ability of VHA clinicians to practice across state lines, following a 2018 federal rule.²⁰ The AES survey noted the VHA ECoE's longstanding experience with telehealth as a model for telemedicine use in providing direct patient care, remote EEG analysis, and clinician-to-clinician consultation.¹

Trends in the number of telehealth patients seen, observed through patterns in ECoE annual reports are consistent with positive views toward this method of service provision. Specifically, these annual reports capture trends in Video Telehealth Clinic (local station), Video Telehealth Clinic (different station), Home Video Telehealth, Telephone Clinic, and eConsults. Though video telehealth at in-person stations had a precipitous drop in 2020 that continued to wane in subsequent years (898 encounters in 2019; 455 encounters in 2020; 90 encounters in 2021; 88 encounters in 2022), use of home video telehealth rose over time (143 encounters in 2019; 1003 encounters in 2020; 3206 encounters in 2021; 3315 encounters in 2022). Use of telephone services rose drastically in 2020 but has since become a less frequently used service method (2636 in 2019; 5923 in 2020; 5319 in 2021; 3704 in 2022).

Limitations

While the survey encouraged a high response rate, this limited its scope and interpretability. While the availability of services was evaluated, the underlying reasons were not queried. Follow-up questions about barriers to reopening may have allowed for a better understanding of why some services, such as EMU, continued to operate suboptimally later in the pandemic. Similarly, asking about unique strategies or barriers for telehealth would have allowed for a better understanding of its current and future use. We hypothesize that staffing changes during the pandemic may have influenced the availability of services, but changes to staffing were not assessed via the survey and were not readily available via other sources (eg, ECoE annual reports) at the time of publication. An additional limitation is the lack of comparable surveys in the literature for time points T2 to T4, as most analogous surveys were performed early in 2020.

Conclusions

This longitudinal study performed at 4 time points during the COVID-19 pandemic is the first to offer a comprehensive picture of changes to epilepsy and EEG services over time, given that other similar surveys lacked follow-up. Results reveal a significant limitation of services at VHA ECoE shortly after the onset of the pandemic, with return to near-complete operational status 2 years later. While safety precautions and telehealth are predicted to continue, telehealth is perceived as a more permanent change in services.

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

Hot Topics in Primary Care 2024 is a resource that explores the newest developments in primary care topics that impact your daily clinical practice. 

Click on the link below to access the entire supplement. 

• Case Studies in Continuous Glucose Monitoring
• Detection and Diagnosis of Early Symptomatic 
  Alzheimer’s Disease in Primary Care
• Elevating the Importance of Asthma Care in the United States
• Hypercortisolism is More Common Than You Think – 
  Here’s How to Find It
• Improving COPD Management at Transitions of Care
• Improving Patient-Centric COPD Management 
• The Role of Finerenone in Optimizing Cardiovascular-
  Kidney-Metabolic Health: Everything PCPs Should Know
• What Primary Care Clinicians Need to Know About Once-Weekly Insulins

This supplement offers the opportunity to earn a total of 3 continuing medical education (CME) credits. Credit is awarded for the successful completion of the evaluation after reading the article. The links can be found within the supplement on the first page of each article where CME credits are offered.

Click here to read the 2024 Hot Topics in Primary Care

Hot Topics in Primary Care 2024 is a resource that explores the newest developments in primary care topics that impact your daily clinical practice. 

Click on the link below to access the entire supplement. 

• Case Studies in Continuous Glucose Monitoring
• Detection and Diagnosis of Early Symptomatic 
  Alzheimer’s Disease in Primary Care
• Elevating the Importance of Asthma Care in the United States
• Hypercortisolism is More Common Than You Think – 
  Here’s How to Find It
• Improving COPD Management at Transitions of Care
• Improving Patient-Centric COPD Management 
• The Role of Finerenone in Optimizing Cardiovascular-
  Kidney-Metabolic Health: Everything PCPs Should Know
• What Primary Care Clinicians Need to Know About Once-Weekly Insulins

This supplement offers the opportunity to earn a total of 3 continuing medical education (CME) credits. Credit is awarded for the successful completion of the evaluation after reading the article. The links can be found within the supplement on the first page of each article where CME credits are offered.

Click here to read the 2024 Hot Topics in Primary Care

Hot Topics in Primary Care 2024 is a resource that explores the newest developments in primary care topics that impact your daily clinical practice. 

Click on the link below to access the entire supplement. 

• Case Studies in Continuous Glucose Monitoring
• Detection and Diagnosis of Early Symptomatic 
  Alzheimer’s Disease in Primary Care
• Elevating the Importance of Asthma Care in the United States
• Hypercortisolism is More Common Than You Think – 
  Here’s How to Find It
• Improving COPD Management at Transitions of Care
• Improving Patient-Centric COPD Management 
• The Role of Finerenone in Optimizing Cardiovascular-
  Kidney-Metabolic Health: Everything PCPs Should Know
• What Primary Care Clinicians Need to Know About Once-Weekly Insulins

This supplement offers the opportunity to earn a total of 3 continuing medical education (CME) credits. Credit is awarded for the successful completion of the evaluation after reading the article. The links can be found within the supplement on the first page of each article where CME credits are offered.

Click here to read the 2024 Hot Topics in Primary Care

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Signs of frailty may signal future dementia more than a decade before cognitive symptoms occur, in new findings that may provide a potential opportunity to identify high-risk populations for targeted enrollment in clinical trials of dementia prevention and treatment.

Results of an international study assessing frailty trajectories showed frailty levels notably increased in the 4-9 years before dementia diagnosis. Even among study participants whose baseline frailty measurement was taken prior to that acceleration period, frailty was still positively associated with dementia risk, the investigators noted.

“We found that with every four to five additional health problems, there is on average a 40% higher risk of developing dementia, while the risk is lower for people who are more physically fit,” said study investigator David Ward, PhD, of the Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

 

A Promising Biomarker

An accessible biomarker for both biologic age and dementia risk is essential for advancing dementia prevention and treatment strategies, the investigators noted, adding that growing evidence suggests frailty may be a promising candidate for this role.

To learn more about the association between frailty and dementia, Ward and his team analyzed data on 29,849 participants aged 60 years or above (mean age, 71.6 years; 62% women) who participated in four cohort studies: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA; n = 6771), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; n = 9045), the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP; n = 1451), and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC; n = 12,582).

The primary outcome was all-cause dementia. Depending on the cohort, dementia diagnoses were determined through cognitive testing, self- or family report of physician diagnosis, or a diagnosis by the study physician. Participants were excluded if they had cognitive impairment at baseline.

Investigators retrospectively determined frailty index scores by gathering information on health and functional outcomes for participants from each cohort. Only participants with frailty data on at least 30 deficits were included.

Commonly included deficits included high blood pressure, cancer, and chronic pain, as well as functional problems such as hearing impairment, difficulty with mobility, and challenges managing finances.

Investigators conducted follow-up visits with participants until they developed dementia or until the study ended, with follow-up periods varying across cohorts.

After adjustment for potential confounders, frailty scores were modeled using backward time scales.

Among participants who developed incident dementia (n = 3154), covariate-adjusted expected frailty index scores were, on average, higher in women than in men by 18.5% in ELSA, 20.9% in HRS, and 16.2% in MAP. There were no differences in frailty scores between sexes in the NACC cohort.

When measured on a timeline, as compared with those who didn’t develop dementia, frailty scores were significantly and consistently higher in the dementia groups 8-20 before dementia onset (20 years in HRS; 13 in MAP; 12 in ELSA; 8 in NACC).

Increases in the rates of frailty index scores began accelerating 4-9 years before dementia onset for the various cohorts, investigators noted.

In all four cohorts, each 0.1 increase in frailty scores was positively associated with increased dementia risk.

Adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs] ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.73 in the NACC cohort, which showed the strongest association.

In participants whose baseline frailty measurement was conducted before the predementia acceleration period began, the association of frailty scores and dementia risk was positive. These aHRs ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.43 in the NACC cohort.

 

The ‘Four Pillars’ of Prevention

The good news, investigators said, is that the long trajectory of frailty symptoms preceding dementia onset provides plenty of opportunity for intervention.

To slow the development of frailty, Ward suggested adhering to the “four pillars of frailty prevention and management,” which include good nutrition with plenty of protein, exercise, optimizing medications for chronic conditions, and maintaining a strong social network.

Ward suggested neurologists track frailty in their patients and pointed to a recent article focused on helping neurologists use frailty measures to influence care planning.

Study limitations include the possibility of reverse causality and the fact that investigators could not adjust for genetic risk for dementia.

 

Unclear Pathway

Commenting on the findings, Lycia Neumann, PhD, senior director of Health Services Research at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that many studies over the years have shown a link between frailty and dementia. However, she cautioned that a link does not imply causation.

The pathway from frailty to dementia is not 100% clear, and both are complex conditions, said Neumann, who was not part of the study.

“Adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors early and consistently can help decrease the risk of — or postpone the onset of — both frailty and cognitive decline,” she said. Neumann added that physical activity, a healthy diet, social engagement, and controlling diabetes and blood pressure can also reduce the risk for dementia as well as cardiovascular disease.

The study was funded in part by the Deep Dementia Phenotyping Network through the Frailty and Dementia Special Interest Group. Ward and Neumann reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Signs of frailty may signal future dementia more than a decade before cognitive symptoms occur, in new findings that may provide a potential opportunity to identify high-risk populations for targeted enrollment in clinical trials of dementia prevention and treatment.

Results of an international study assessing frailty trajectories showed frailty levels notably increased in the 4-9 years before dementia diagnosis. Even among study participants whose baseline frailty measurement was taken prior to that acceleration period, frailty was still positively associated with dementia risk, the investigators noted.

“We found that with every four to five additional health problems, there is on average a 40% higher risk of developing dementia, while the risk is lower for people who are more physically fit,” said study investigator David Ward, PhD, of the Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

 

A Promising Biomarker

An accessible biomarker for both biologic age and dementia risk is essential for advancing dementia prevention and treatment strategies, the investigators noted, adding that growing evidence suggests frailty may be a promising candidate for this role.

To learn more about the association between frailty and dementia, Ward and his team analyzed data on 29,849 participants aged 60 years or above (mean age, 71.6 years; 62% women) who participated in four cohort studies: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA; n = 6771), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; n = 9045), the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP; n = 1451), and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC; n = 12,582).

The primary outcome was all-cause dementia. Depending on the cohort, dementia diagnoses were determined through cognitive testing, self- or family report of physician diagnosis, or a diagnosis by the study physician. Participants were excluded if they had cognitive impairment at baseline.

Investigators retrospectively determined frailty index scores by gathering information on health and functional outcomes for participants from each cohort. Only participants with frailty data on at least 30 deficits were included.

Commonly included deficits included high blood pressure, cancer, and chronic pain, as well as functional problems such as hearing impairment, difficulty with mobility, and challenges managing finances.

Investigators conducted follow-up visits with participants until they developed dementia or until the study ended, with follow-up periods varying across cohorts.

After adjustment for potential confounders, frailty scores were modeled using backward time scales.

Among participants who developed incident dementia (n = 3154), covariate-adjusted expected frailty index scores were, on average, higher in women than in men by 18.5% in ELSA, 20.9% in HRS, and 16.2% in MAP. There were no differences in frailty scores between sexes in the NACC cohort.

When measured on a timeline, as compared with those who didn’t develop dementia, frailty scores were significantly and consistently higher in the dementia groups 8-20 before dementia onset (20 years in HRS; 13 in MAP; 12 in ELSA; 8 in NACC).

Increases in the rates of frailty index scores began accelerating 4-9 years before dementia onset for the various cohorts, investigators noted.

In all four cohorts, each 0.1 increase in frailty scores was positively associated with increased dementia risk.

Adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs] ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.73 in the NACC cohort, which showed the strongest association.

In participants whose baseline frailty measurement was conducted before the predementia acceleration period began, the association of frailty scores and dementia risk was positive. These aHRs ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.43 in the NACC cohort.

 

The ‘Four Pillars’ of Prevention

The good news, investigators said, is that the long trajectory of frailty symptoms preceding dementia onset provides plenty of opportunity for intervention.

To slow the development of frailty, Ward suggested adhering to the “four pillars of frailty prevention and management,” which include good nutrition with plenty of protein, exercise, optimizing medications for chronic conditions, and maintaining a strong social network.

Ward suggested neurologists track frailty in their patients and pointed to a recent article focused on helping neurologists use frailty measures to influence care planning.

Study limitations include the possibility of reverse causality and the fact that investigators could not adjust for genetic risk for dementia.

 

Unclear Pathway

Commenting on the findings, Lycia Neumann, PhD, senior director of Health Services Research at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that many studies over the years have shown a link between frailty and dementia. However, she cautioned that a link does not imply causation.

The pathway from frailty to dementia is not 100% clear, and both are complex conditions, said Neumann, who was not part of the study.

“Adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors early and consistently can help decrease the risk of — or postpone the onset of — both frailty and cognitive decline,” she said. Neumann added that physical activity, a healthy diet, social engagement, and controlling diabetes and blood pressure can also reduce the risk for dementia as well as cardiovascular disease.

The study was funded in part by the Deep Dementia Phenotyping Network through the Frailty and Dementia Special Interest Group. Ward and Neumann reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Signs of frailty may signal future dementia more than a decade before cognitive symptoms occur, in new findings that may provide a potential opportunity to identify high-risk populations for targeted enrollment in clinical trials of dementia prevention and treatment.

Results of an international study assessing frailty trajectories showed frailty levels notably increased in the 4-9 years before dementia diagnosis. Even among study participants whose baseline frailty measurement was taken prior to that acceleration period, frailty was still positively associated with dementia risk, the investigators noted.

“We found that with every four to five additional health problems, there is on average a 40% higher risk of developing dementia, while the risk is lower for people who are more physically fit,” said study investigator David Ward, PhD, of the Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

 

A Promising Biomarker

An accessible biomarker for both biologic age and dementia risk is essential for advancing dementia prevention and treatment strategies, the investigators noted, adding that growing evidence suggests frailty may be a promising candidate for this role.

To learn more about the association between frailty and dementia, Ward and his team analyzed data on 29,849 participants aged 60 years or above (mean age, 71.6 years; 62% women) who participated in four cohort studies: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA; n = 6771), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; n = 9045), the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP; n = 1451), and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC; n = 12,582).

The primary outcome was all-cause dementia. Depending on the cohort, dementia diagnoses were determined through cognitive testing, self- or family report of physician diagnosis, or a diagnosis by the study physician. Participants were excluded if they had cognitive impairment at baseline.

Investigators retrospectively determined frailty index scores by gathering information on health and functional outcomes for participants from each cohort. Only participants with frailty data on at least 30 deficits were included.

Commonly included deficits included high blood pressure, cancer, and chronic pain, as well as functional problems such as hearing impairment, difficulty with mobility, and challenges managing finances.

Investigators conducted follow-up visits with participants until they developed dementia or until the study ended, with follow-up periods varying across cohorts.

After adjustment for potential confounders, frailty scores were modeled using backward time scales.

Among participants who developed incident dementia (n = 3154), covariate-adjusted expected frailty index scores were, on average, higher in women than in men by 18.5% in ELSA, 20.9% in HRS, and 16.2% in MAP. There were no differences in frailty scores between sexes in the NACC cohort.

When measured on a timeline, as compared with those who didn’t develop dementia, frailty scores were significantly and consistently higher in the dementia groups 8-20 before dementia onset (20 years in HRS; 13 in MAP; 12 in ELSA; 8 in NACC).

Increases in the rates of frailty index scores began accelerating 4-9 years before dementia onset for the various cohorts, investigators noted.

In all four cohorts, each 0.1 increase in frailty scores was positively associated with increased dementia risk.

Adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs] ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.73 in the NACC cohort, which showed the strongest association.

In participants whose baseline frailty measurement was conducted before the predementia acceleration period began, the association of frailty scores and dementia risk was positive. These aHRs ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.43 in the NACC cohort.

 

The ‘Four Pillars’ of Prevention

The good news, investigators said, is that the long trajectory of frailty symptoms preceding dementia onset provides plenty of opportunity for intervention.

To slow the development of frailty, Ward suggested adhering to the “four pillars of frailty prevention and management,” which include good nutrition with plenty of protein, exercise, optimizing medications for chronic conditions, and maintaining a strong social network.

Ward suggested neurologists track frailty in their patients and pointed to a recent article focused on helping neurologists use frailty measures to influence care planning.

Study limitations include the possibility of reverse causality and the fact that investigators could not adjust for genetic risk for dementia.

 

Unclear Pathway

Commenting on the findings, Lycia Neumann, PhD, senior director of Health Services Research at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that many studies over the years have shown a link between frailty and dementia. However, she cautioned that a link does not imply causation.

The pathway from frailty to dementia is not 100% clear, and both are complex conditions, said Neumann, who was not part of the study.

“Adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors early and consistently can help decrease the risk of — or postpone the onset of — both frailty and cognitive decline,” she said. Neumann added that physical activity, a healthy diet, social engagement, and controlling diabetes and blood pressure can also reduce the risk for dementia as well as cardiovascular disease.

The study was funded in part by the Deep Dementia Phenotyping Network through the Frailty and Dementia Special Interest Group. Ward and Neumann reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin K supplementation significantly reduced the frequency, intensity, and duration of nocturnal leg cramps in older adults. No adverse events related to vitamin K were identified.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial in China from September 2022 to December 2023.
• A total of 199 participants aged ≥ 65 years with at least two documented episodes of nocturnal leg cramps during a 2-week screening period were included.
• Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 180 μg of vitamin K (menaquinone 7) or a placebo daily for 8 weeks.
• The primary outcome was the mean number of nocturnal leg cramps per week, while secondary outcomes were the duration and severity of muscle cramps.
• The ethics committees of Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu and Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College approved the study, and all participants provided written informed consent.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin K group experienced a significant reduction in the mean weekly frequency of cramps (mean difference, 2.60 [SD, 0.81] to 0.96 [SD, 1.41]) compared with the placebo group, which maintained a mean weekly frequency of 3.63 (SD, 2.20) (P < .001).
• The severity of nocturnal leg cramps decreased more in the vitamin K group (mean difference, −2.55 [SD, 2.12] points) than in the placebo group (mean difference, −1.24 [SD, 1.16] points).
• The duration of nocturnal leg cramps also decreased more in the vitamin K group (mean difference, −0.90 [SD, 0.88] minutes) than in the placebo group (mean difference, −0.32 [SD, 0.78] minutes).
• No adverse events related to vitamin K use were identified, indicating a good safety profile for the supplementation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the generally benign characteristics of NLCs, treatment modality must be both effective and safe, thus minimizing the risk of iatrogenic harm,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jing Tan, MD, the Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu in Chengdu, China. It was published online on October 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study did not investigate the quality of life or sleep, which could have provided additional insights into the impact of vitamin K on nocturnal leg cramps. The relatively mild nature of nocturnal leg cramps experienced by the participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to populations with more severe symptoms.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from China Health Promotion Foundation and the Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu Scientific Research Project. Tan disclosed receiving personal fees from BeiGene, AbbVie, Pfizer, Xian Janssen Pharmaceutical, and Takeda Pharmaceutical outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin K supplementation significantly reduced the frequency, intensity, and duration of nocturnal leg cramps in older adults. No adverse events related to vitamin K were identified.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial in China from September 2022 to December 2023.
• A total of 199 participants aged ≥ 65 years with at least two documented episodes of nocturnal leg cramps during a 2-week screening period were included.
• Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 180 μg of vitamin K (menaquinone 7) or a placebo daily for 8 weeks.
• The primary outcome was the mean number of nocturnal leg cramps per week, while secondary outcomes were the duration and severity of muscle cramps.
• The ethics committees of Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu and Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College approved the study, and all participants provided written informed consent.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin K group experienced a significant reduction in the mean weekly frequency of cramps (mean difference, 2.60 [SD, 0.81] to 0.96 [SD, 1.41]) compared with the placebo group, which maintained a mean weekly frequency of 3.63 (SD, 2.20) (P < .001).
• The severity of nocturnal leg cramps decreased more in the vitamin K group (mean difference, −2.55 [SD, 2.12] points) than in the placebo group (mean difference, −1.24 [SD, 1.16] points).
• The duration of nocturnal leg cramps also decreased more in the vitamin K group (mean difference, −0.90 [SD, 0.88] minutes) than in the placebo group (mean difference, −0.32 [SD, 0.78] minutes).
• No adverse events related to vitamin K use were identified, indicating a good safety profile for the supplementation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the generally benign characteristics of NLCs, treatment modality must be both effective and safe, thus minimizing the risk of iatrogenic harm,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jing Tan, MD, the Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu in Chengdu, China. It was published online on October 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study did not investigate the quality of life or sleep, which could have provided additional insights into the impact of vitamin K on nocturnal leg cramps. The relatively mild nature of nocturnal leg cramps experienced by the participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to populations with more severe symptoms.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from China Health Promotion Foundation and the Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu Scientific Research Project. Tan disclosed receiving personal fees from BeiGene, AbbVie, Pfizer, Xian Janssen Pharmaceutical, and Takeda Pharmaceutical outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin K supplementation significantly reduced the frequency, intensity, and duration of nocturnal leg cramps in older adults. No adverse events related to vitamin K were identified.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial in China from September 2022 to December 2023.
• A total of 199 participants aged ≥ 65 years with at least two documented episodes of nocturnal leg cramps during a 2-week screening period were included.
• Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 180 μg of vitamin K (menaquinone 7) or a placebo daily for 8 weeks.
• The primary outcome was the mean number of nocturnal leg cramps per week, while secondary outcomes were the duration and severity of muscle cramps.
• The ethics committees of Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu and Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College approved the study, and all participants provided written informed consent.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin K group experienced a significant reduction in the mean weekly frequency of cramps (mean difference, 2.60 [SD, 0.81] to 0.96 [SD, 1.41]) compared with the placebo group, which maintained a mean weekly frequency of 3.63 (SD, 2.20) (P < .001).
• The severity of nocturnal leg cramps decreased more in the vitamin K group (mean difference, −2.55 [SD, 2.12] points) than in the placebo group (mean difference, −1.24 [SD, 1.16] points).
• The duration of nocturnal leg cramps also decreased more in the vitamin K group (mean difference, −0.90 [SD, 0.88] minutes) than in the placebo group (mean difference, −0.32 [SD, 0.78] minutes).
• No adverse events related to vitamin K use were identified, indicating a good safety profile for the supplementation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the generally benign characteristics of NLCs, treatment modality must be both effective and safe, thus minimizing the risk of iatrogenic harm,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jing Tan, MD, the Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu in Chengdu, China. It was published online on October 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study did not investigate the quality of life or sleep, which could have provided additional insights into the impact of vitamin K on nocturnal leg cramps. The relatively mild nature of nocturnal leg cramps experienced by the participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to populations with more severe symptoms.