Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Race and socioeconomic status can hinder and delay patient access to migraine treatment and result in poorer outcomes, according to a study published in the April issue of Headache. People of African descent and Latinx ethnicity tend to fare worse than other people of color and their White counterparts.

“It should be shocking to neurologists and other clinicians who care for migraine patients how few are able to successfully traverse the barriers to achieve an accurate diagnosis and proper, evidence-based, acute and preventative treatment,” commented Peter McAllister, MD, medical director at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache and chief medical officer for clinical research at Ki Clinical Research in Stamford, Conn. Dr. McAllister was not involved in this study.
 

Assessing barriers to care

Researchers designed the study with the primary objective of estimating the number of patients with migraines with unmet clinical needs and who were impacted by four preidentified barriers to care. To evaluate their objective, researchers conducted a longitudinal, Internet-based survey known as the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study. They collected data over 1 year examining a cohort of patients that mimicked the diverse demographics of the U.S. population. Researchers conducted longitudinal assessments every 3 months for 15 months, incorporating cross-sectional analyses that surveyed health care use, family burden, and comorbidities or endophenotypes.

Eligible enrollees were 18 years of age or older.

Researchers identified four barriers that hindered patient outcomes, and they served as the primary outcomes of the studies. They were:

• Health care provider consultations. Investigators used study participants’ responses to the following question during their interactions with their health care providers to help evaluate the quality of their consultation experience: “What type of doctor is currently managing your headaches?” Researchers included data from patients whose practitioners fit the description of those they deemed best suited to address ongoing headache challenges. These medical professionals included general practitioners, family physicians, internal medicine doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, neurologists, pain specialists, headache specialists, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
• Diagnosis. Carefully evaluating patients’ responses to a series of questions helped researchers gauge the accuracy of diagnosis. Questions included: “Have you ever been diagnosed by a doctor or other health professional with any of the following types of headaches?” Respondents were also given a list of options that provided additional context around their headaches and were encouraged to select all appropriate responses. The list included a fictional response option of “citrene headache” to determine incorrect responses. For this study, researchers deemed it necessary to recognize a chronic migraine diagnosis to ensure that patients received appropriate treatment.
• Minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment. Researchers used the following question to determine whether patients’ chronic migraine and episodic migraine were being managed with the least amount of pharmacological treatment necessary. “Which of these medications (if any) are you currently using (or typically keep on hand) to treat your headaches when you have them?” Researchers defined “minimally appropriate acute pharmacologic treatment” as the use of any prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), triptan, ergotamine derivative, or isometheptene.
• Avoidance of medication overuse. The study authors pointed out the sometimes nebulous process of characterizing the appropriate use of preventative medication in patients with episodic migraines as “not straightforward” for some patients because not all patients require preventive treatment. Study participants were required to report having received any form of preventative therapy, defined as pharmacological therapies approved by guidelines and supported by data. Such therapies included various antiseizure medication, antidepressants (for example, doxepin, venlafaxine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, imipramine, nortriptyline, and desvenlafaxine), antihypertensives, and toxin injections. Treatments such as behavioral and neuromodulatory therapies were excluded from the list.

According to lead author Dawn C. Buse, PhD, of the department of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, acute medication overuse provides an important modifiable target for intervention and recommends that clinicians use the opportunity to optimize migraine care by reducing the patients’ reliance on acute therapies. Taking such initiatives to decrease medication overuse is especially important in communities of color, who are more likely to overuse medications for migraines.

Patients with higher income levels were more likely to overcome each barrier. People of African, African American, or multiracial descent were more prone to overuse of medications to manage their migraines.

Of the 489,537 respondents invited to participate in the CaMEO study, 16,879 qualified for inclusion. Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 9,184 [54.7%]) had a migraine-related disability (MIDAS) score of 6 or greater – an indicator of disability that is least mild in nature. Most patients who had episodic migraines or chronic migraines (86.2%) had some form of health insurance coverage (n = 9.184; 84.1%; P = .048). Of those patients who were insured, 7,930 patients experienced episodic migraine (86.3%) and the remainder had chronic migraine (n = 1,254; 13.7%). Higher-income patients were more likely to traverse barriers to care. While patients of African descent had higher consultation rates, they also had higher rates of acute medication overuse.

Patients with chronic migraine were more likely to be older than patients with episodic migraine (41.0 vs. 39.6 years; P = .0001) and female (83.0% vs. 79.0%; P = .001), and White (84.5% vs. 79.1%; P < .001). Similarly, patients with chronic migraine were more likely to have a higher mean body mass index (29.8 kg/m² vs. 28.9 kg/m²; P < .001) and lower rates of full- or part-time employment (56.8% vs. 67.1%; P < .001), and were less likely to have a 4-year degree (64.8 vs. 55.6; P < .001) and annual household incomes below $75,000 (72.6% vs. 64.6%; P < .001). Approximately three-quarters of the patients with episodic migraine (75.7%; 1655/2187) and one-third of patients with chronic migraine (32.8%; 168/512) received accurate diagnoses.

The data uncovered an association with acute medication overuse. Among current consulters who had received an accurate diagnosis and minimally adequate treatment, medication overuse rates were highest among those reporting two or more races (53%) and Blacks and African Americans (45%) and lowest among Whites (33%) and those categorized as “other” race (32%). Ethnic and cultural differences in headache literacy may contribute to differences in medication overuse. 
 

Strategies to improve outcomes

Both Dr. Buse and Dr. McAllister see the value advocacy and education offer in helping to improve outcomes in marginalized communities and other groups negatively impacted by various barriers.

“Patient advocacy and outreach are key here, especially in those traditionally underrepresented in the migraine space, such as men, people of color, blue-collar workers, etc.,” Dr. McAllister noted.

Dr. Buse emphasized the importance of education for patients and health care professionals alike. “A large percentage of people who meet criteria for migraine in the U.S. do not seek care or possibly even know that they have migraines,” Dr. Buse said. “This finding underscores the importance of public health education about migraine as well as well as providing migraine support, education, and resources to health care professionals on the front lines.”

Other strategies recommended by Dr, Buse to ease the impact of barriers include encouraging patient discussion, setting up time for follow-up appointments and education, referring patients for neurological and other specialty consults when warranted, reviewing essential lifestyle habits for migraine management, and creating personalized, mutually agreed-upon treatment plans.

Dr. Buse has received support and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, and Promius.

Race and socioeconomic status can hinder and delay patient access to migraine treatment and result in poorer outcomes, according to a study published in the April issue of Headache. People of African descent and Latinx ethnicity tend to fare worse than other people of color and their White counterparts.

“It should be shocking to neurologists and other clinicians who care for migraine patients how few are able to successfully traverse the barriers to achieve an accurate diagnosis and proper, evidence-based, acute and preventative treatment,” commented Peter McAllister, MD, medical director at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache and chief medical officer for clinical research at Ki Clinical Research in Stamford, Conn. Dr. McAllister was not involved in this study.
 

Assessing barriers to care

Researchers designed the study with the primary objective of estimating the number of patients with migraines with unmet clinical needs and who were impacted by four preidentified barriers to care. To evaluate their objective, researchers conducted a longitudinal, Internet-based survey known as the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study. They collected data over 1 year examining a cohort of patients that mimicked the diverse demographics of the U.S. population. Researchers conducted longitudinal assessments every 3 months for 15 months, incorporating cross-sectional analyses that surveyed health care use, family burden, and comorbidities or endophenotypes.

Eligible enrollees were 18 years of age or older.

Researchers identified four barriers that hindered patient outcomes, and they served as the primary outcomes of the studies. They were:

• Health care provider consultations. Investigators used study participants’ responses to the following question during their interactions with their health care providers to help evaluate the quality of their consultation experience: “What type of doctor is currently managing your headaches?” Researchers included data from patients whose practitioners fit the description of those they deemed best suited to address ongoing headache challenges. These medical professionals included general practitioners, family physicians, internal medicine doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, neurologists, pain specialists, headache specialists, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
• Diagnosis. Carefully evaluating patients’ responses to a series of questions helped researchers gauge the accuracy of diagnosis. Questions included: “Have you ever been diagnosed by a doctor or other health professional with any of the following types of headaches?” Respondents were also given a list of options that provided additional context around their headaches and were encouraged to select all appropriate responses. The list included a fictional response option of “citrene headache” to determine incorrect responses. For this study, researchers deemed it necessary to recognize a chronic migraine diagnosis to ensure that patients received appropriate treatment.
• Minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment. Researchers used the following question to determine whether patients’ chronic migraine and episodic migraine were being managed with the least amount of pharmacological treatment necessary. “Which of these medications (if any) are you currently using (or typically keep on hand) to treat your headaches when you have them?” Researchers defined “minimally appropriate acute pharmacologic treatment” as the use of any prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), triptan, ergotamine derivative, or isometheptene.
• Avoidance of medication overuse. The study authors pointed out the sometimes nebulous process of characterizing the appropriate use of preventative medication in patients with episodic migraines as “not straightforward” for some patients because not all patients require preventive treatment. Study participants were required to report having received any form of preventative therapy, defined as pharmacological therapies approved by guidelines and supported by data. Such therapies included various antiseizure medication, antidepressants (for example, doxepin, venlafaxine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, imipramine, nortriptyline, and desvenlafaxine), antihypertensives, and toxin injections. Treatments such as behavioral and neuromodulatory therapies were excluded from the list.

According to lead author Dawn C. Buse, PhD, of the department of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, acute medication overuse provides an important modifiable target for intervention and recommends that clinicians use the opportunity to optimize migraine care by reducing the patients’ reliance on acute therapies. Taking such initiatives to decrease medication overuse is especially important in communities of color, who are more likely to overuse medications for migraines.

Patients with higher income levels were more likely to overcome each barrier. People of African, African American, or multiracial descent were more prone to overuse of medications to manage their migraines.

Of the 489,537 respondents invited to participate in the CaMEO study, 16,879 qualified for inclusion. Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 9,184 [54.7%]) had a migraine-related disability (MIDAS) score of 6 or greater – an indicator of disability that is least mild in nature. Most patients who had episodic migraines or chronic migraines (86.2%) had some form of health insurance coverage (n = 9.184; 84.1%; P = .048). Of those patients who were insured, 7,930 patients experienced episodic migraine (86.3%) and the remainder had chronic migraine (n = 1,254; 13.7%). Higher-income patients were more likely to traverse barriers to care. While patients of African descent had higher consultation rates, they also had higher rates of acute medication overuse.

Patients with chronic migraine were more likely to be older than patients with episodic migraine (41.0 vs. 39.6 years; P = .0001) and female (83.0% vs. 79.0%; P = .001), and White (84.5% vs. 79.1%; P < .001). Similarly, patients with chronic migraine were more likely to have a higher mean body mass index (29.8 kg/m² vs. 28.9 kg/m²; P < .001) and lower rates of full- or part-time employment (56.8% vs. 67.1%; P < .001), and were less likely to have a 4-year degree (64.8 vs. 55.6; P < .001) and annual household incomes below $75,000 (72.6% vs. 64.6%; P < .001). Approximately three-quarters of the patients with episodic migraine (75.7%; 1655/2187) and one-third of patients with chronic migraine (32.8%; 168/512) received accurate diagnoses.

The data uncovered an association with acute medication overuse. Among current consulters who had received an accurate diagnosis and minimally adequate treatment, medication overuse rates were highest among those reporting two or more races (53%) and Blacks and African Americans (45%) and lowest among Whites (33%) and those categorized as “other” race (32%). Ethnic and cultural differences in headache literacy may contribute to differences in medication overuse. 
 

Strategies to improve outcomes

Both Dr. Buse and Dr. McAllister see the value advocacy and education offer in helping to improve outcomes in marginalized communities and other groups negatively impacted by various barriers.

“Patient advocacy and outreach are key here, especially in those traditionally underrepresented in the migraine space, such as men, people of color, blue-collar workers, etc.,” Dr. McAllister noted.

Dr. Buse emphasized the importance of education for patients and health care professionals alike. “A large percentage of people who meet criteria for migraine in the U.S. do not seek care or possibly even know that they have migraines,” Dr. Buse said. “This finding underscores the importance of public health education about migraine as well as well as providing migraine support, education, and resources to health care professionals on the front lines.”

Other strategies recommended by Dr, Buse to ease the impact of barriers include encouraging patient discussion, setting up time for follow-up appointments and education, referring patients for neurological and other specialty consults when warranted, reviewing essential lifestyle habits for migraine management, and creating personalized, mutually agreed-upon treatment plans.

Dr. Buse has received support and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, and Promius.

Race and socioeconomic status can hinder and delay patient access to migraine treatment and result in poorer outcomes, according to a study published in the April issue of Headache. People of African descent and Latinx ethnicity tend to fare worse than other people of color and their White counterparts.

“It should be shocking to neurologists and other clinicians who care for migraine patients how few are able to successfully traverse the barriers to achieve an accurate diagnosis and proper, evidence-based, acute and preventative treatment,” commented Peter McAllister, MD, medical director at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache and chief medical officer for clinical research at Ki Clinical Research in Stamford, Conn. Dr. McAllister was not involved in this study.
 

Assessing barriers to care

Researchers designed the study with the primary objective of estimating the number of patients with migraines with unmet clinical needs and who were impacted by four preidentified barriers to care. To evaluate their objective, researchers conducted a longitudinal, Internet-based survey known as the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study. They collected data over 1 year examining a cohort of patients that mimicked the diverse demographics of the U.S. population. Researchers conducted longitudinal assessments every 3 months for 15 months, incorporating cross-sectional analyses that surveyed health care use, family burden, and comorbidities or endophenotypes.

Eligible enrollees were 18 years of age or older.

Researchers identified four barriers that hindered patient outcomes, and they served as the primary outcomes of the studies. They were:

• Health care provider consultations. Investigators used study participants’ responses to the following question during their interactions with their health care providers to help evaluate the quality of their consultation experience: “What type of doctor is currently managing your headaches?” Researchers included data from patients whose practitioners fit the description of those they deemed best suited to address ongoing headache challenges. These medical professionals included general practitioners, family physicians, internal medicine doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, neurologists, pain specialists, headache specialists, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
• Diagnosis. Carefully evaluating patients’ responses to a series of questions helped researchers gauge the accuracy of diagnosis. Questions included: “Have you ever been diagnosed by a doctor or other health professional with any of the following types of headaches?” Respondents were also given a list of options that provided additional context around their headaches and were encouraged to select all appropriate responses. The list included a fictional response option of “citrene headache” to determine incorrect responses. For this study, researchers deemed it necessary to recognize a chronic migraine diagnosis to ensure that patients received appropriate treatment.
• Minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment. Researchers used the following question to determine whether patients’ chronic migraine and episodic migraine were being managed with the least amount of pharmacological treatment necessary. “Which of these medications (if any) are you currently using (or typically keep on hand) to treat your headaches when you have them?” Researchers defined “minimally appropriate acute pharmacologic treatment” as the use of any prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), triptan, ergotamine derivative, or isometheptene.
• Avoidance of medication overuse. The study authors pointed out the sometimes nebulous process of characterizing the appropriate use of preventative medication in patients with episodic migraines as “not straightforward” for some patients because not all patients require preventive treatment. Study participants were required to report having received any form of preventative therapy, defined as pharmacological therapies approved by guidelines and supported by data. Such therapies included various antiseizure medication, antidepressants (for example, doxepin, venlafaxine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, imipramine, nortriptyline, and desvenlafaxine), antihypertensives, and toxin injections. Treatments such as behavioral and neuromodulatory therapies were excluded from the list.

According to lead author Dawn C. Buse, PhD, of the department of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, acute medication overuse provides an important modifiable target for intervention and recommends that clinicians use the opportunity to optimize migraine care by reducing the patients’ reliance on acute therapies. Taking such initiatives to decrease medication overuse is especially important in communities of color, who are more likely to overuse medications for migraines.

Patients with higher income levels were more likely to overcome each barrier. People of African, African American, or multiracial descent were more prone to overuse of medications to manage their migraines.

Of the 489,537 respondents invited to participate in the CaMEO study, 16,879 qualified for inclusion. Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 9,184 [54.7%]) had a migraine-related disability (MIDAS) score of 6 or greater – an indicator of disability that is least mild in nature. Most patients who had episodic migraines or chronic migraines (86.2%) had some form of health insurance coverage (n = 9.184; 84.1%; P = .048). Of those patients who were insured, 7,930 patients experienced episodic migraine (86.3%) and the remainder had chronic migraine (n = 1,254; 13.7%). Higher-income patients were more likely to traverse barriers to care. While patients of African descent had higher consultation rates, they also had higher rates of acute medication overuse.

Patients with chronic migraine were more likely to be older than patients with episodic migraine (41.0 vs. 39.6 years; P = .0001) and female (83.0% vs. 79.0%; P = .001), and White (84.5% vs. 79.1%; P < .001). Similarly, patients with chronic migraine were more likely to have a higher mean body mass index (29.8 kg/m² vs. 28.9 kg/m²; P < .001) and lower rates of full- or part-time employment (56.8% vs. 67.1%; P < .001), and were less likely to have a 4-year degree (64.8 vs. 55.6; P < .001) and annual household incomes below $75,000 (72.6% vs. 64.6%; P < .001). Approximately three-quarters of the patients with episodic migraine (75.7%; 1655/2187) and one-third of patients with chronic migraine (32.8%; 168/512) received accurate diagnoses.

The data uncovered an association with acute medication overuse. Among current consulters who had received an accurate diagnosis and minimally adequate treatment, medication overuse rates were highest among those reporting two or more races (53%) and Blacks and African Americans (45%) and lowest among Whites (33%) and those categorized as “other” race (32%). Ethnic and cultural differences in headache literacy may contribute to differences in medication overuse. 
 

Strategies to improve outcomes

Both Dr. Buse and Dr. McAllister see the value advocacy and education offer in helping to improve outcomes in marginalized communities and other groups negatively impacted by various barriers.

“Patient advocacy and outreach are key here, especially in those traditionally underrepresented in the migraine space, such as men, people of color, blue-collar workers, etc.,” Dr. McAllister noted.

Dr. Buse emphasized the importance of education for patients and health care professionals alike. “A large percentage of people who meet criteria for migraine in the U.S. do not seek care or possibly even know that they have migraines,” Dr. Buse said. “This finding underscores the importance of public health education about migraine as well as well as providing migraine support, education, and resources to health care professionals on the front lines.”

Other strategies recommended by Dr, Buse to ease the impact of barriers include encouraging patient discussion, setting up time for follow-up appointments and education, referring patients for neurological and other specialty consults when warranted, reviewing essential lifestyle habits for migraine management, and creating personalized, mutually agreed-upon treatment plans.

Dr. Buse has received support and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, and Promius.

The Food and Drug Administration is recommending patients and caregivers keep cell phones and smart watches at least 6 inches away from implanted medical devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The warning, published on May 13, comes on the heels of recent research reporting that high–field strength magnets in newer smartphones may cause some implanted medical devices to switch to “magnet mode” and suspend normal lifesaving operations until the magnet is moved away.

This, for example, may cause a cardiac defibrillator to be unable to detect tachycardia events, the agency noted. The magnets may also change the operational mode such as turning on asynchronous mode in a pacemaker.

“The FDA is aware of published articles which describe the effect that sufficiently strong magnetic fields can turn on the magnetic safe mode when in close contact,” it said. “The FDA also conducted its own testing on some products that use the high–field strength magnet feature and have confirmed the magnetic field is both consistent with the publications and strong enough to turn on the magnetic safety mode of the medical devices in question.”

The FDA said it believes the risk to patients is low and is not aware of any adverse events associated with this issue at this time.

The American Heart Association has also cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for implantable cardioverter defibrillators and pacemakers.

The FDA offered the following simple precautions for individuals with implanted medical devices:

• Keep the consumer electronics, such as certain cell phones and smart watches, 6 inches away from implanted medical devices.
• Do not carry consumer electronics in a pocket over the medical device.
• Check your device using your home monitoring system, if you have one.
• Talk to your health care provider if you are experiencing any symptoms or have questions regarding magnets in consumer electronics and implanted medical devices.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is recommending patients and caregivers keep cell phones and smart watches at least 6 inches away from implanted medical devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The warning, published on May 13, comes on the heels of recent research reporting that high–field strength magnets in newer smartphones may cause some implanted medical devices to switch to “magnet mode” and suspend normal lifesaving operations until the magnet is moved away.

This, for example, may cause a cardiac defibrillator to be unable to detect tachycardia events, the agency noted. The magnets may also change the operational mode such as turning on asynchronous mode in a pacemaker.

“The FDA is aware of published articles which describe the effect that sufficiently strong magnetic fields can turn on the magnetic safe mode when in close contact,” it said. “The FDA also conducted its own testing on some products that use the high–field strength magnet feature and have confirmed the magnetic field is both consistent with the publications and strong enough to turn on the magnetic safety mode of the medical devices in question.”

The FDA said it believes the risk to patients is low and is not aware of any adverse events associated with this issue at this time.

The American Heart Association has also cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for implantable cardioverter defibrillators and pacemakers.

The FDA offered the following simple precautions for individuals with implanted medical devices:

• Keep the consumer electronics, such as certain cell phones and smart watches, 6 inches away from implanted medical devices.
• Do not carry consumer electronics in a pocket over the medical device.
• Check your device using your home monitoring system, if you have one.
• Talk to your health care provider if you are experiencing any symptoms or have questions regarding magnets in consumer electronics and implanted medical devices.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is recommending patients and caregivers keep cell phones and smart watches at least 6 inches away from implanted medical devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The warning, published on May 13, comes on the heels of recent research reporting that high–field strength magnets in newer smartphones may cause some implanted medical devices to switch to “magnet mode” and suspend normal lifesaving operations until the magnet is moved away.

This, for example, may cause a cardiac defibrillator to be unable to detect tachycardia events, the agency noted. The magnets may also change the operational mode such as turning on asynchronous mode in a pacemaker.

“The FDA is aware of published articles which describe the effect that sufficiently strong magnetic fields can turn on the magnetic safe mode when in close contact,” it said. “The FDA also conducted its own testing on some products that use the high–field strength magnet feature and have confirmed the magnetic field is both consistent with the publications and strong enough to turn on the magnetic safety mode of the medical devices in question.”

The FDA said it believes the risk to patients is low and is not aware of any adverse events associated with this issue at this time.

The American Heart Association has also cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for implantable cardioverter defibrillators and pacemakers.

The FDA offered the following simple precautions for individuals with implanted medical devices:

• Keep the consumer electronics, such as certain cell phones and smart watches, 6 inches away from implanted medical devices.
• Do not carry consumer electronics in a pocket over the medical device.
• Check your device using your home monitoring system, if you have one.
• Talk to your health care provider if you are experiencing any symptoms or have questions regarding magnets in consumer electronics and implanted medical devices.

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

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 2% of asymptomatic college students carried 90% of COVID-19 viral load levels on a Colorado campus last year, new research reveals. Furthermore, the viral loads in these students were as elevated as those seen in hospitalized patients.

“College campuses were one of the few places where people without any symptoms or suspicions of exposure were being screened for the virus. This allowed us to make some powerful comparisons between symptomatic vs healthy carriers of the virus,” senior study author Sara Sawyer, PhD, professor of virology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said in an interview.

“It turns out, walking around a college campus can be as dangerous as walking through a COVID ward in the hospital, in that you will experience these viral ‘super carriers’ equally in both settings,” she said.

“This is an important study in advancing our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 is distributed in the population,” Thomas Giordano, MD, MPH, professor and section chief of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

The study “adds to the evidence that viral load is not too tightly correlated with symptoms.” In fact, Dr. Giordano added, “this study suggests viral load is not at all correlated with symptoms.”

Viral load may not be correlated with transmissibility either, said Raphael Viscidi, MD, when asked to comment. “This is not a transmissibility study. They did not show that viral load is the factor related to transmission.”

“It’s true that 2% of the population they studied carried 90% of the virus, but it does not establish any biological importance to that 2%,” added Dr. Viscidi, professor of pediatrics and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,.

The 2% could just be the upper tail end of a normal bell-shaped distribution curve, Dr. Viscidi said, or there could be something biologically unique about that group. But the study does not make that distinction, he said.

The study was published online May 10, 2021, in PNAS, the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

A similar picture in hospitalized patients

Out of more than 72,500 saliva samples taken during COVID-19 screening at the University of Colorado Boulder between Aug. 27 and Dec. 11, 2020, 1,405 were positive for SARS-CoV-2.

The investigators also compared viral loads from students with those of hospitalized patients based on published data. They found the distribution of viral loads between these groups “indistinguishable.”

“Strikingly, these datasets demonstrate dramatic differences in viral levels between individuals, with a very small minority of the infected individuals harboring the vast majority of the infectious virions,” the researchers wrote. The comparison “really represents two extremes: One group is mostly hospitalized, while the other group represents a mostly young and healthy (but infected) college population.”

“It would be interesting to adjust public health recommendations based on a person’s viral load,” Dr. Giordano said. “One could speculate that a person with a very high viral load could be isolated longer or more thoroughly, while someone with a very low viral load could be minimally isolated.

“This is speculation, and more data are needed to test this concept,” he added. Also, quantitative viral load testing would need to be standardized before it could be used to guide such decision-making
 

Preceding the COVID-19 vaccine era

It should be noted that the research was conducted in fall 2020, before access to COVID-19 immunization.

“The study was performed prior to vaccine availability in a cohort of young people. It adds further data to support prior observations that the majority of infections are spread by a much smaller group of individuals,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview.

“Now that vaccines are available, I think it is very likely that a repeat study of this type would show diminished transmission from vaccinated people who were infected yet asymptomatic,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not affiliated with the research.
 

Mechanism still a mystery

“This finding has been in the literature in piecemeal fashion since the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Sawyer said. “I just think we were the first to realize the bigger implications of these plots of viral load that we have all been seeing over and over again.”

How a minority of people walk around asymptomatic with a majority of virus remains unanswered. Are there special people who can harbor these extremely high viral loads? Or do many infected individuals experience a short period of time when they carry such elevated levels?

The highest observed viral load in the current study was more than 6 trillion virions per mL. “It is remarkable to consider that this individual was on campus and reported no symptoms at our testing site,” the researchers wrote.

In contrast, the lowest viral load detected was 8 virions per mL.

Although more research is needed, the investigators noted that “a strong implication is that these individuals who are viral ‘super carriers’ may also be ‘superspreaders.’ ”

Some of the study authors have financial ties to companies that offer commercial SARS-CoV-2 testing, including Darwin Biosciences, TUMI Genomics, Faze Medicines, and Arpeggio Biosciences.

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

About 2% of asymptomatic college students carried 90% of COVID-19 viral load levels on a Colorado campus last year, new research reveals. Furthermore, the viral loads in these students were as elevated as those seen in hospitalized patients.

“College campuses were one of the few places where people without any symptoms or suspicions of exposure were being screened for the virus. This allowed us to make some powerful comparisons between symptomatic vs healthy carriers of the virus,” senior study author Sara Sawyer, PhD, professor of virology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said in an interview.

“It turns out, walking around a college campus can be as dangerous as walking through a COVID ward in the hospital, in that you will experience these viral ‘super carriers’ equally in both settings,” she said.

“This is an important study in advancing our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 is distributed in the population,” Thomas Giordano, MD, MPH, professor and section chief of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

The study “adds to the evidence that viral load is not too tightly correlated with symptoms.” In fact, Dr. Giordano added, “this study suggests viral load is not at all correlated with symptoms.”

Viral load may not be correlated with transmissibility either, said Raphael Viscidi, MD, when asked to comment. “This is not a transmissibility study. They did not show that viral load is the factor related to transmission.”

“It’s true that 2% of the population they studied carried 90% of the virus, but it does not establish any biological importance to that 2%,” added Dr. Viscidi, professor of pediatrics and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,.

The 2% could just be the upper tail end of a normal bell-shaped distribution curve, Dr. Viscidi said, or there could be something biologically unique about that group. But the study does not make that distinction, he said.

The study was published online May 10, 2021, in PNAS, the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

A similar picture in hospitalized patients

Out of more than 72,500 saliva samples taken during COVID-19 screening at the University of Colorado Boulder between Aug. 27 and Dec. 11, 2020, 1,405 were positive for SARS-CoV-2.

The investigators also compared viral loads from students with those of hospitalized patients based on published data. They found the distribution of viral loads between these groups “indistinguishable.”

“Strikingly, these datasets demonstrate dramatic differences in viral levels between individuals, with a very small minority of the infected individuals harboring the vast majority of the infectious virions,” the researchers wrote. The comparison “really represents two extremes: One group is mostly hospitalized, while the other group represents a mostly young and healthy (but infected) college population.”

“It would be interesting to adjust public health recommendations based on a person’s viral load,” Dr. Giordano said. “One could speculate that a person with a very high viral load could be isolated longer or more thoroughly, while someone with a very low viral load could be minimally isolated.

“This is speculation, and more data are needed to test this concept,” he added. Also, quantitative viral load testing would need to be standardized before it could be used to guide such decision-making
 

Preceding the COVID-19 vaccine era

It should be noted that the research was conducted in fall 2020, before access to COVID-19 immunization.

“The study was performed prior to vaccine availability in a cohort of young people. It adds further data to support prior observations that the majority of infections are spread by a much smaller group of individuals,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview.

“Now that vaccines are available, I think it is very likely that a repeat study of this type would show diminished transmission from vaccinated people who were infected yet asymptomatic,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not affiliated with the research.
 

Mechanism still a mystery

“This finding has been in the literature in piecemeal fashion since the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Sawyer said. “I just think we were the first to realize the bigger implications of these plots of viral load that we have all been seeing over and over again.”

How a minority of people walk around asymptomatic with a majority of virus remains unanswered. Are there special people who can harbor these extremely high viral loads? Or do many infected individuals experience a short period of time when they carry such elevated levels?

The highest observed viral load in the current study was more than 6 trillion virions per mL. “It is remarkable to consider that this individual was on campus and reported no symptoms at our testing site,” the researchers wrote.

In contrast, the lowest viral load detected was 8 virions per mL.

Although more research is needed, the investigators noted that “a strong implication is that these individuals who are viral ‘super carriers’ may also be ‘superspreaders.’ ”

Some of the study authors have financial ties to companies that offer commercial SARS-CoV-2 testing, including Darwin Biosciences, TUMI Genomics, Faze Medicines, and Arpeggio Biosciences.

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

About 2% of asymptomatic college students carried 90% of COVID-19 viral load levels on a Colorado campus last year, new research reveals. Furthermore, the viral loads in these students were as elevated as those seen in hospitalized patients.

“College campuses were one of the few places where people without any symptoms or suspicions of exposure were being screened for the virus. This allowed us to make some powerful comparisons between symptomatic vs healthy carriers of the virus,” senior study author Sara Sawyer, PhD, professor of virology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said in an interview.

“It turns out, walking around a college campus can be as dangerous as walking through a COVID ward in the hospital, in that you will experience these viral ‘super carriers’ equally in both settings,” she said.

“This is an important study in advancing our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 is distributed in the population,” Thomas Giordano, MD, MPH, professor and section chief of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

The study “adds to the evidence that viral load is not too tightly correlated with symptoms.” In fact, Dr. Giordano added, “this study suggests viral load is not at all correlated with symptoms.”

Viral load may not be correlated with transmissibility either, said Raphael Viscidi, MD, when asked to comment. “This is not a transmissibility study. They did not show that viral load is the factor related to transmission.”

“It’s true that 2% of the population they studied carried 90% of the virus, but it does not establish any biological importance to that 2%,” added Dr. Viscidi, professor of pediatrics and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,.

The 2% could just be the upper tail end of a normal bell-shaped distribution curve, Dr. Viscidi said, or there could be something biologically unique about that group. But the study does not make that distinction, he said.

The study was published online May 10, 2021, in PNAS, the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

A similar picture in hospitalized patients

Out of more than 72,500 saliva samples taken during COVID-19 screening at the University of Colorado Boulder between Aug. 27 and Dec. 11, 2020, 1,405 were positive for SARS-CoV-2.

The investigators also compared viral loads from students with those of hospitalized patients based on published data. They found the distribution of viral loads between these groups “indistinguishable.”

“Strikingly, these datasets demonstrate dramatic differences in viral levels between individuals, with a very small minority of the infected individuals harboring the vast majority of the infectious virions,” the researchers wrote. The comparison “really represents two extremes: One group is mostly hospitalized, while the other group represents a mostly young and healthy (but infected) college population.”

“It would be interesting to adjust public health recommendations based on a person’s viral load,” Dr. Giordano said. “One could speculate that a person with a very high viral load could be isolated longer or more thoroughly, while someone with a very low viral load could be minimally isolated.

“This is speculation, and more data are needed to test this concept,” he added. Also, quantitative viral load testing would need to be standardized before it could be used to guide such decision-making
 

Preceding the COVID-19 vaccine era

It should be noted that the research was conducted in fall 2020, before access to COVID-19 immunization.

“The study was performed prior to vaccine availability in a cohort of young people. It adds further data to support prior observations that the majority of infections are spread by a much smaller group of individuals,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview.

“Now that vaccines are available, I think it is very likely that a repeat study of this type would show diminished transmission from vaccinated people who were infected yet asymptomatic,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not affiliated with the research.
 

Mechanism still a mystery

“This finding has been in the literature in piecemeal fashion since the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Sawyer said. “I just think we were the first to realize the bigger implications of these plots of viral load that we have all been seeing over and over again.”

How a minority of people walk around asymptomatic with a majority of virus remains unanswered. Are there special people who can harbor these extremely high viral loads? Or do many infected individuals experience a short period of time when they carry such elevated levels?

The highest observed viral load in the current study was more than 6 trillion virions per mL. “It is remarkable to consider that this individual was on campus and reported no symptoms at our testing site,” the researchers wrote.

In contrast, the lowest viral load detected was 8 virions per mL.

Although more research is needed, the investigators noted that “a strong implication is that these individuals who are viral ‘super carriers’ may also be ‘superspreaders.’ ”

Some of the study authors have financial ties to companies that offer commercial SARS-CoV-2 testing, including Darwin Biosciences, TUMI Genomics, Faze Medicines, and Arpeggio Biosciences.

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

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

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

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

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

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

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

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

High adolescent body mass index is tied to increasing risks of stroke in young adulthood in both men and women, results of a large, population-based cohort study show.

Copyright American Stroke Association

High and even high-normal body mass index (BMI) were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk, regardless of whether or not individuals had diabetes.

Overweight and obese adolescent groups in the study had a roughly two- to threefold increased risk of ischemic stroke, which was apparent even before age 30 years in the study that was based on records of Israeli adolescents evaluated prior to mandatory military service.

These findings highlight the importance of treating and preventing high BMI among adolescence, study coauthor Gilad Twig, MD, MPH, PhD, said in a press release.

“Adults who survive stroke earlier in life face poor functional outcomes, which can lead to unemployment, depression and anxiety,” said Dr. Twig, associate professor in the department of military medicine in The Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The costs of stroke prevention and care, already high, are expected to become even higher as the adolescent obesity prevalence goes up, fueling further increases in stroke rate, Dr. Twig added.

This is believed to be the first study showing that stroke risk is associated with higher BMI values in both men and women, not just men, Dr. Twig and coauthors said in their article, published May 13, 2021 in the journal Stroke. Previous studies assessing the stroke-BMI relationship in adolescents were based on records of Swedish men evaluated during military conscription at age 18.

In the present study, Dr. Twig and coauthors assessed the linkage between adolescent BMI and first stroke event in 1.9 million male and female adolescents in Israel who were evaluated 1 year prior to mandatory military service, between the years of 1985 and 2013.

They cross-referenced that information with stroke events in a national registry to which all hospitals in Israel are required to report.

The adolescents were about 17 years of age on average at the time of evaluation, 58% were male, and 84% were born in Israel. The mean age at the beginning of follow-up for stroke was about 31 years.

Over the follow-up period, investigators identified 1,088 first stroke events, including 921 ischemic and 167 hemorrhagic strokes.

A gradual increase in stroke rate was seen across BMI categories for ischemic strokes, but not so much for hemorrhagic strokes, investigators found.

Hazard ratios for first ischemic stroke event were 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.6) for the high-normal BMI group, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.6-2.4) for the overweight group, and 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8-4.5) for the obese group after adjusting for age and sex at beginning of follow-up, investigators reported.

When the adjusted results were stratified by presence or absence of diabetes, estimates were similar to what was seen in the overall risk model, they added.

Among those young adults who developed ischemic stroke, 43% smoked, 29% had high blood pressure, 17% had diabetes, and 32% had abnormal lipids at the time of diagnosis, the reported data showed.

The clinical and public health implications of these findings could be substantial, since strokes are associated with worse medical and socioeconomic outcomes in younger as compared with older individuals, according to Dr. Twig and coauthors.

Younger individuals with stroke have a higher risk of recurrent stroke, heart attack, long-term care, or death, they said. Moreover, about half of young-adult stroke survivors have poor functional outcomes, and their risk of unemployment and depression/anxiety is higher than in young individuals without stroke.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up BMI data were not available for all participants. As a result, the contribution of obesity to stroke risk over time could not be assessed, and the independent risk of BMI during adolescence could not be determined. In addition, the authors said the study underrepresents orthodox and ultraorthodox Jewish women, as they are not obligated to serve in the Israeli military.

The study authors had no disclosures related to the study, which was supported by a medical corps Israel Defense Forces research grant.

High adolescent body mass index is tied to increasing risks of stroke in young adulthood in both men and women, results of a large, population-based cohort study show.

Copyright American Stroke Association

High and even high-normal body mass index (BMI) were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk, regardless of whether or not individuals had diabetes.

Overweight and obese adolescent groups in the study had a roughly two- to threefold increased risk of ischemic stroke, which was apparent even before age 30 years in the study that was based on records of Israeli adolescents evaluated prior to mandatory military service.

These findings highlight the importance of treating and preventing high BMI among adolescence, study coauthor Gilad Twig, MD, MPH, PhD, said in a press release.

“Adults who survive stroke earlier in life face poor functional outcomes, which can lead to unemployment, depression and anxiety,” said Dr. Twig, associate professor in the department of military medicine in The Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The costs of stroke prevention and care, already high, are expected to become even higher as the adolescent obesity prevalence goes up, fueling further increases in stroke rate, Dr. Twig added.

This is believed to be the first study showing that stroke risk is associated with higher BMI values in both men and women, not just men, Dr. Twig and coauthors said in their article, published May 13, 2021 in the journal Stroke. Previous studies assessing the stroke-BMI relationship in adolescents were based on records of Swedish men evaluated during military conscription at age 18.

In the present study, Dr. Twig and coauthors assessed the linkage between adolescent BMI and first stroke event in 1.9 million male and female adolescents in Israel who were evaluated 1 year prior to mandatory military service, between the years of 1985 and 2013.

They cross-referenced that information with stroke events in a national registry to which all hospitals in Israel are required to report.

The adolescents were about 17 years of age on average at the time of evaluation, 58% were male, and 84% were born in Israel. The mean age at the beginning of follow-up for stroke was about 31 years.

Over the follow-up period, investigators identified 1,088 first stroke events, including 921 ischemic and 167 hemorrhagic strokes.

A gradual increase in stroke rate was seen across BMI categories for ischemic strokes, but not so much for hemorrhagic strokes, investigators found.

Hazard ratios for first ischemic stroke event were 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.6) for the high-normal BMI group, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.6-2.4) for the overweight group, and 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8-4.5) for the obese group after adjusting for age and sex at beginning of follow-up, investigators reported.

When the adjusted results were stratified by presence or absence of diabetes, estimates were similar to what was seen in the overall risk model, they added.

Among those young adults who developed ischemic stroke, 43% smoked, 29% had high blood pressure, 17% had diabetes, and 32% had abnormal lipids at the time of diagnosis, the reported data showed.

The clinical and public health implications of these findings could be substantial, since strokes are associated with worse medical and socioeconomic outcomes in younger as compared with older individuals, according to Dr. Twig and coauthors.

Younger individuals with stroke have a higher risk of recurrent stroke, heart attack, long-term care, or death, they said. Moreover, about half of young-adult stroke survivors have poor functional outcomes, and their risk of unemployment and depression/anxiety is higher than in young individuals without stroke.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up BMI data were not available for all participants. As a result, the contribution of obesity to stroke risk over time could not be assessed, and the independent risk of BMI during adolescence could not be determined. In addition, the authors said the study underrepresents orthodox and ultraorthodox Jewish women, as they are not obligated to serve in the Israeli military.

The study authors had no disclosures related to the study, which was supported by a medical corps Israel Defense Forces research grant.

High adolescent body mass index is tied to increasing risks of stroke in young adulthood in both men and women, results of a large, population-based cohort study show.

Copyright American Stroke Association

High and even high-normal body mass index (BMI) were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk, regardless of whether or not individuals had diabetes.

Overweight and obese adolescent groups in the study had a roughly two- to threefold increased risk of ischemic stroke, which was apparent even before age 30 years in the study that was based on records of Israeli adolescents evaluated prior to mandatory military service.

These findings highlight the importance of treating and preventing high BMI among adolescence, study coauthor Gilad Twig, MD, MPH, PhD, said in a press release.

“Adults who survive stroke earlier in life face poor functional outcomes, which can lead to unemployment, depression and anxiety,” said Dr. Twig, associate professor in the department of military medicine in The Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The costs of stroke prevention and care, already high, are expected to become even higher as the adolescent obesity prevalence goes up, fueling further increases in stroke rate, Dr. Twig added.

This is believed to be the first study showing that stroke risk is associated with higher BMI values in both men and women, not just men, Dr. Twig and coauthors said in their article, published May 13, 2021 in the journal Stroke. Previous studies assessing the stroke-BMI relationship in adolescents were based on records of Swedish men evaluated during military conscription at age 18.

In the present study, Dr. Twig and coauthors assessed the linkage between adolescent BMI and first stroke event in 1.9 million male and female adolescents in Israel who were evaluated 1 year prior to mandatory military service, between the years of 1985 and 2013.

They cross-referenced that information with stroke events in a national registry to which all hospitals in Israel are required to report.

The adolescents were about 17 years of age on average at the time of evaluation, 58% were male, and 84% were born in Israel. The mean age at the beginning of follow-up for stroke was about 31 years.

Over the follow-up period, investigators identified 1,088 first stroke events, including 921 ischemic and 167 hemorrhagic strokes.

A gradual increase in stroke rate was seen across BMI categories for ischemic strokes, but not so much for hemorrhagic strokes, investigators found.

Hazard ratios for first ischemic stroke event were 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.6) for the high-normal BMI group, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.6-2.4) for the overweight group, and 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8-4.5) for the obese group after adjusting for age and sex at beginning of follow-up, investigators reported.

When the adjusted results were stratified by presence or absence of diabetes, estimates were similar to what was seen in the overall risk model, they added.

Among those young adults who developed ischemic stroke, 43% smoked, 29% had high blood pressure, 17% had diabetes, and 32% had abnormal lipids at the time of diagnosis, the reported data showed.

The clinical and public health implications of these findings could be substantial, since strokes are associated with worse medical and socioeconomic outcomes in younger as compared with older individuals, according to Dr. Twig and coauthors.

Younger individuals with stroke have a higher risk of recurrent stroke, heart attack, long-term care, or death, they said. Moreover, about half of young-adult stroke survivors have poor functional outcomes, and their risk of unemployment and depression/anxiety is higher than in young individuals without stroke.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up BMI data were not available for all participants. As a result, the contribution of obesity to stroke risk over time could not be assessed, and the independent risk of BMI during adolescence could not be determined. In addition, the authors said the study underrepresents orthodox and ultraorthodox Jewish women, as they are not obligated to serve in the Israeli military.

The study authors had no disclosures related to the study, which was supported by a medical corps Israel Defense Forces research grant.

Most patients will not make a full recovery from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adulthood. This late-breaking finding headlined the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event. Held under the specter of SARS-CoV-2, the virtual program delved into the latest research on ADHD pathophysiology, imaging, genetics, and issues on medical and psychiatric comorbidities.

However, one of the conference’s highlights was a piece of unpublished work on remission patterns by Margaret Sibley, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Anywhere from 65% to 67% of young adults have desistant ADHD – meaning that they no longer meet criteria. Only up to 23% experience full remission, said Dr. Sibley during a special late-breaking session. All research on remission and most on persistence consider just one endpoint – nothing is known about longitudinal fluctuations in remission status over time.

Her research sought to answer a key question: Do people fully recover from ADHD?

Using data from the Multimodal Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (MTA) Study, Dr. Sibley prospectively followed over 550 children aged 7-9.9 years with DSM-IV combined-type ADHD over 14 years, until 16 years after baseline, using interviews, questionnaires, and rating scales to track symptoms, impairment, and treatment history.

The researchers also came up with a “winning” definition for full remission, which included three or fewer symptoms of inattention and hyperactive impulsivity from all available reporters, negligible ADHD-related impairment based on preestablished impairment rating thresholds, and discontinuation of medication and behavioral treatments for at least a month prior to assessment.

In the longitudinal results, Dr. Sibley and colleagues reported that the majority (63.8%) demonstrated fluctuations between full or partial remission and ADHD recurrence. Only 9.1% sustained full remission over the course of the study. From these findings, ADHD appears to be a fluctuating disorder. While it continues into adulthood for most people, there may also be periods of remission or “good functioning.”

Most desistance from ADHD represents partial, not full remission, said Dr. Sibley. The results also show that recovery by young adulthood is very rare – most patients with remitted ADHD have recurrences.

These are important findings, said Luis Augusto Rohde, MD, PhD, who co-organized the congress’ scientific program committee with Manfred Gerlach, PhD. It shows that a patient’s ADHD may sometimes be more definitive and at other times, no clear phenotype expression emerges.

COVID’s influence

COVID-19 greatly influenced this year’s program’s agenda, said Dr. Rohde. “There’s a lot of evidence that ADHD patients are at greater risk for COVID-19, which is not a surprise,” said Dr. Rohde, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul’s department of psychiatry in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

ADHD is a combination of genetic liability and the demands of the environment. “In times like we are living in right now, if you have increasing demands and stress from the environment, you trigger symptoms in those even with lower genetic liability,” he said. ADHD’s pathophysiology involves attention and executive deficit disorder, which means these patients may not follow strategies to avoid infection.

This shows why COVID was so important to the discussion of program topics, he said.

Two experts addressed this subject head on in a point-counterpoint debate, “Residual effects of the 2019 pandemic will mirror the 1918 pandemic: Will we have lots of new ADHD cases?” James Swanson, PhD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, Irvine, projected that biological coeffects of COVID-19 will lead to ADHD symptoms, generating potentially 5 million new ADHD cases.

David Coghill, MBChB, MD, a professor of child adolescent mental health at the University of Melbourne, countered that not enough data are available yet to back this hypothesis. “Researchers are asking this question, but clinically we don’t know enough.”

While the COVID virus might not directly lead to more cases of ADHD, this could potentially happen indirectly through environmental agents of the pandemic, offered Dr. Rohde. “We’ve clearly seen in our appointments with families and children that they can’t face the amount of schooling and working from home,” he said.

 

Novel treatments

The conference also addressed new treatments and nonpharmacologic interventions in the pipeline for ADHD. “We had a chance to discuss the possibilities about new medications that address the problems in the current market and to show the potential usefulness of nonpharma interventions such as neuromodulations in ADHD,” said Dr. Rohde. Speakers discussed strategies ranging from family-based mindfulness interventions to oligoantigenic diets in children with ADHD.

Other researchers are looking at novel digital tools to help patients manage and treat ADHD. Adherence is a major problem in chronic disorders like hypertension, diabetes, epilepsy, and ADHD, said Dr. Rohde. “Due to ADHD symptomatology including inattention, novelty-seeking, executive deficits, and difficulties in persistence, it is an even bigger problem in this disorder.”

Speakers at the “ADHD in the digital age – From pitfalls to challenges” session discussed video game strategies to reduce ADHD impairment, and a texting app to improve adherence. Dr. Rohde talked about the FOCUS app, which fosters collaboration between patients, families, and caregivers to efficiently track ADHD symptoms and help customize treatments.

Studies suggest these tools can significantly improve adherence. They’re also well accepted by patients, said Dr. Rohde. While the expectations are high, digital interventions are not a substitute for medication. “More data is needed to include them as part of the clinical interventions for ADHD.”

Dr. Sibley received book royalties from Guilford Press. Dr. Rohde has received grant or research support from, served as a consultant to, and served on the speakers’ bureau of Bial, Medice, Novartis/Sandoz, Pfizer, and Shire/Takeda in the last 3 years. The ADHD and Juvenile Bipolar Disorder Outpatient Programs chaired by Dr. Rohde have received unrestricted educational and research support from the following pharmaceutical companies in the last 3 years: Novartis/Sandoz and Shire/Takeda. Dr. Rohde has received authorship royalties from Oxford Press and ArtMed and travel grants from Shire to take part in the 2018 APA annual meeting. Dr. Swanson has two patents: (PIXA4), which uses a “time-of-flight” camera to measure growth of infants, and a provisional patent on the mechanism of tolerance to stimulant medication (PATSMTA). He has received travel support from Medice and has done legal review for NLS. Dr. Coghill worked for several pharmaceutical companies but had no disclosures relevant to the session debate on the pandemic.

Most patients will not make a full recovery from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adulthood. This late-breaking finding headlined the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event. Held under the specter of SARS-CoV-2, the virtual program delved into the latest research on ADHD pathophysiology, imaging, genetics, and issues on medical and psychiatric comorbidities.

However, one of the conference’s highlights was a piece of unpublished work on remission patterns by Margaret Sibley, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Anywhere from 65% to 67% of young adults have desistant ADHD – meaning that they no longer meet criteria. Only up to 23% experience full remission, said Dr. Sibley during a special late-breaking session. All research on remission and most on persistence consider just one endpoint – nothing is known about longitudinal fluctuations in remission status over time.

Her research sought to answer a key question: Do people fully recover from ADHD?

Using data from the Multimodal Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (MTA) Study, Dr. Sibley prospectively followed over 550 children aged 7-9.9 years with DSM-IV combined-type ADHD over 14 years, until 16 years after baseline, using interviews, questionnaires, and rating scales to track symptoms, impairment, and treatment history.

The researchers also came up with a “winning” definition for full remission, which included three or fewer symptoms of inattention and hyperactive impulsivity from all available reporters, negligible ADHD-related impairment based on preestablished impairment rating thresholds, and discontinuation of medication and behavioral treatments for at least a month prior to assessment.

In the longitudinal results, Dr. Sibley and colleagues reported that the majority (63.8%) demonstrated fluctuations between full or partial remission and ADHD recurrence. Only 9.1% sustained full remission over the course of the study. From these findings, ADHD appears to be a fluctuating disorder. While it continues into adulthood for most people, there may also be periods of remission or “good functioning.”

Most desistance from ADHD represents partial, not full remission, said Dr. Sibley. The results also show that recovery by young adulthood is very rare – most patients with remitted ADHD have recurrences.

These are important findings, said Luis Augusto Rohde, MD, PhD, who co-organized the congress’ scientific program committee with Manfred Gerlach, PhD. It shows that a patient’s ADHD may sometimes be more definitive and at other times, no clear phenotype expression emerges.

COVID’s influence

COVID-19 greatly influenced this year’s program’s agenda, said Dr. Rohde. “There’s a lot of evidence that ADHD patients are at greater risk for COVID-19, which is not a surprise,” said Dr. Rohde, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul’s department of psychiatry in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

ADHD is a combination of genetic liability and the demands of the environment. “In times like we are living in right now, if you have increasing demands and stress from the environment, you trigger symptoms in those even with lower genetic liability,” he said. ADHD’s pathophysiology involves attention and executive deficit disorder, which means these patients may not follow strategies to avoid infection.

This shows why COVID was so important to the discussion of program topics, he said.

Two experts addressed this subject head on in a point-counterpoint debate, “Residual effects of the 2019 pandemic will mirror the 1918 pandemic: Will we have lots of new ADHD cases?” James Swanson, PhD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, Irvine, projected that biological coeffects of COVID-19 will lead to ADHD symptoms, generating potentially 5 million new ADHD cases.

David Coghill, MBChB, MD, a professor of child adolescent mental health at the University of Melbourne, countered that not enough data are available yet to back this hypothesis. “Researchers are asking this question, but clinically we don’t know enough.”

While the COVID virus might not directly lead to more cases of ADHD, this could potentially happen indirectly through environmental agents of the pandemic, offered Dr. Rohde. “We’ve clearly seen in our appointments with families and children that they can’t face the amount of schooling and working from home,” he said.

 

Novel treatments

The conference also addressed new treatments and nonpharmacologic interventions in the pipeline for ADHD. “We had a chance to discuss the possibilities about new medications that address the problems in the current market and to show the potential usefulness of nonpharma interventions such as neuromodulations in ADHD,” said Dr. Rohde. Speakers discussed strategies ranging from family-based mindfulness interventions to oligoantigenic diets in children with ADHD.

Other researchers are looking at novel digital tools to help patients manage and treat ADHD. Adherence is a major problem in chronic disorders like hypertension, diabetes, epilepsy, and ADHD, said Dr. Rohde. “Due to ADHD symptomatology including inattention, novelty-seeking, executive deficits, and difficulties in persistence, it is an even bigger problem in this disorder.”

Speakers at the “ADHD in the digital age – From pitfalls to challenges” session discussed video game strategies to reduce ADHD impairment, and a texting app to improve adherence. Dr. Rohde talked about the FOCUS app, which fosters collaboration between patients, families, and caregivers to efficiently track ADHD symptoms and help customize treatments.

Studies suggest these tools can significantly improve adherence. They’re also well accepted by patients, said Dr. Rohde. While the expectations are high, digital interventions are not a substitute for medication. “More data is needed to include them as part of the clinical interventions for ADHD.”

Dr. Sibley received book royalties from Guilford Press. Dr. Rohde has received grant or research support from, served as a consultant to, and served on the speakers’ bureau of Bial, Medice, Novartis/Sandoz, Pfizer, and Shire/Takeda in the last 3 years. The ADHD and Juvenile Bipolar Disorder Outpatient Programs chaired by Dr. Rohde have received unrestricted educational and research support from the following pharmaceutical companies in the last 3 years: Novartis/Sandoz and Shire/Takeda. Dr. Rohde has received authorship royalties from Oxford Press and ArtMed and travel grants from Shire to take part in the 2018 APA annual meeting. Dr. Swanson has two patents: (PIXA4), which uses a “time-of-flight” camera to measure growth of infants, and a provisional patent on the mechanism of tolerance to stimulant medication (PATSMTA). He has received travel support from Medice and has done legal review for NLS. Dr. Coghill worked for several pharmaceutical companies but had no disclosures relevant to the session debate on the pandemic.

Most patients will not make a full recovery from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adulthood. This late-breaking finding headlined the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event. Held under the specter of SARS-CoV-2, the virtual program delved into the latest research on ADHD pathophysiology, imaging, genetics, and issues on medical and psychiatric comorbidities.

However, one of the conference’s highlights was a piece of unpublished work on remission patterns by Margaret Sibley, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Anywhere from 65% to 67% of young adults have desistant ADHD – meaning that they no longer meet criteria. Only up to 23% experience full remission, said Dr. Sibley during a special late-breaking session. All research on remission and most on persistence consider just one endpoint – nothing is known about longitudinal fluctuations in remission status over time.

Her research sought to answer a key question: Do people fully recover from ADHD?

Using data from the Multimodal Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (MTA) Study, Dr. Sibley prospectively followed over 550 children aged 7-9.9 years with DSM-IV combined-type ADHD over 14 years, until 16 years after baseline, using interviews, questionnaires, and rating scales to track symptoms, impairment, and treatment history.

The researchers also came up with a “winning” definition for full remission, which included three or fewer symptoms of inattention and hyperactive impulsivity from all available reporters, negligible ADHD-related impairment based on preestablished impairment rating thresholds, and discontinuation of medication and behavioral treatments for at least a month prior to assessment.

In the longitudinal results, Dr. Sibley and colleagues reported that the majority (63.8%) demonstrated fluctuations between full or partial remission and ADHD recurrence. Only 9.1% sustained full remission over the course of the study. From these findings, ADHD appears to be a fluctuating disorder. While it continues into adulthood for most people, there may also be periods of remission or “good functioning.”

Most desistance from ADHD represents partial, not full remission, said Dr. Sibley. The results also show that recovery by young adulthood is very rare – most patients with remitted ADHD have recurrences.

These are important findings, said Luis Augusto Rohde, MD, PhD, who co-organized the congress’ scientific program committee with Manfred Gerlach, PhD. It shows that a patient’s ADHD may sometimes be more definitive and at other times, no clear phenotype expression emerges.

COVID’s influence

COVID-19 greatly influenced this year’s program’s agenda, said Dr. Rohde. “There’s a lot of evidence that ADHD patients are at greater risk for COVID-19, which is not a surprise,” said Dr. Rohde, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul’s department of psychiatry in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

ADHD is a combination of genetic liability and the demands of the environment. “In times like we are living in right now, if you have increasing demands and stress from the environment, you trigger symptoms in those even with lower genetic liability,” he said. ADHD’s pathophysiology involves attention and executive deficit disorder, which means these patients may not follow strategies to avoid infection.

This shows why COVID was so important to the discussion of program topics, he said.

Two experts addressed this subject head on in a point-counterpoint debate, “Residual effects of the 2019 pandemic will mirror the 1918 pandemic: Will we have lots of new ADHD cases?” James Swanson, PhD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, Irvine, projected that biological coeffects of COVID-19 will lead to ADHD symptoms, generating potentially 5 million new ADHD cases.

David Coghill, MBChB, MD, a professor of child adolescent mental health at the University of Melbourne, countered that not enough data are available yet to back this hypothesis. “Researchers are asking this question, but clinically we don’t know enough.”

While the COVID virus might not directly lead to more cases of ADHD, this could potentially happen indirectly through environmental agents of the pandemic, offered Dr. Rohde. “We’ve clearly seen in our appointments with families and children that they can’t face the amount of schooling and working from home,” he said.

 

Novel treatments

The conference also addressed new treatments and nonpharmacologic interventions in the pipeline for ADHD. “We had a chance to discuss the possibilities about new medications that address the problems in the current market and to show the potential usefulness of nonpharma interventions such as neuromodulations in ADHD,” said Dr. Rohde. Speakers discussed strategies ranging from family-based mindfulness interventions to oligoantigenic diets in children with ADHD.

Other researchers are looking at novel digital tools to help patients manage and treat ADHD. Adherence is a major problem in chronic disorders like hypertension, diabetes, epilepsy, and ADHD, said Dr. Rohde. “Due to ADHD symptomatology including inattention, novelty-seeking, executive deficits, and difficulties in persistence, it is an even bigger problem in this disorder.”

Speakers at the “ADHD in the digital age – From pitfalls to challenges” session discussed video game strategies to reduce ADHD impairment, and a texting app to improve adherence. Dr. Rohde talked about the FOCUS app, which fosters collaboration between patients, families, and caregivers to efficiently track ADHD symptoms and help customize treatments.

Studies suggest these tools can significantly improve adherence. They’re also well accepted by patients, said Dr. Rohde. While the expectations are high, digital interventions are not a substitute for medication. “More data is needed to include them as part of the clinical interventions for ADHD.”

Dr. Sibley received book royalties from Guilford Press. Dr. Rohde has received grant or research support from, served as a consultant to, and served on the speakers’ bureau of Bial, Medice, Novartis/Sandoz, Pfizer, and Shire/Takeda in the last 3 years. The ADHD and Juvenile Bipolar Disorder Outpatient Programs chaired by Dr. Rohde have received unrestricted educational and research support from the following pharmaceutical companies in the last 3 years: Novartis/Sandoz and Shire/Takeda. Dr. Rohde has received authorship royalties from Oxford Press and ArtMed and travel grants from Shire to take part in the 2018 APA annual meeting. Dr. Swanson has two patents: (PIXA4), which uses a “time-of-flight” camera to measure growth of infants, and a provisional patent on the mechanism of tolerance to stimulant medication (PATSMTA). He has received travel support from Medice and has done legal review for NLS. Dr. Coghill worked for several pharmaceutical companies but had no disclosures relevant to the session debate on the pandemic.

While it’s possible that residual effects of SARS-CoV-2 could lead to an eruption of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) cases, a debate at the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event underscored the fact that this is still a hypothesis. The bottom line is there needs to be more data, said Luis Augusto Rohde, MD, PhD, cochair of the congress’ scientific program committee and moderator of the session, “Residual effects of the 2019 pandemic will mirror the 1918 pandemic: Will we have lots of new ADHD cases?”

Considering the current pattern of the pandemic, there is not enough evidence for this to be a concern, Dr. Rohde said in an interview.

James Swanson, PhD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, Irvine, opined that biological co-effects of COVID-19 are likely to have selective effects in children that may produce symptoms representative of ADHD. Using the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic as a historical reference, he estimated that COVID-19 would produce 5 million individuals with new-onset symptoms related to ADHD. “If these cases meet DSM-5 or ICD-11 criteria, there will be lots of new ADHD cases,” he predicted.

David Coghill, MD, a professor of child adolescent mental health at the University of Melbourne, observed that the sums Dr. Swanson presented “are based on maxing out the potential rather than looking at the sums more realistically.”
 

Could the 1918 pandemic offer clues?

In a commentary, Dr. Swanson and Nora D. Volkow, MD, wrote about “lessons learned” from the 1918 pandemic, and how residual sequelae in that era led to a condition labeled hyperkinetic syndrome in children. “It may be worthwhile to consider the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic may result in a novel etiologic subtype of ADHD that clinicians may recognize in patients in the future,” wrote the commentators. 

In survivors of the 1918 pandemic, brain inflammation or encephalitis sometimes emerged as residual sequelae, said Dr. Swanson. In some adult cases, these symptoms were diagnosed as “encephalitis lethargica” (EL) and were associated with Parkinson’s disease. In 1930, based on patients evaluated after 1918, researchers Franz Kramer and Hans Pollnow at Charité Hospital in Berlin described the behavioral manifestation of EL in children as hyperkinetic syndrome, a condition that was characterized by symptoms similar to the properties of ADHD: lack of concentration, insufficient goal orientation, and increased distractibility. “They even reported on autopsy cases that described brain regions that we now know are associated with ADHD from decades of brain imaging studies,” said Dr. Swanson.

COVID-19 rarely results in severe respiratory problems in children but the absolute number requiring hospitalization has accumulated and is now relatively large, said Dr. Swanson. One study of 1,695 severe COVID-19 cases in children and adolescents used MRI and detected neural effects in specific brain regions such as basal ganglia and frontal lobes that previous research had associated with ADHD. Approximately 22% of these rare but severe cases had documented neurologic involvement, and studies of affected children with mild or none of the initial respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 also detected similar selective effects in these brain regions.

A recent survey of medical records of 80 million people that identified 240,000 COVID cases (mostly adults) revealed that a third had neurological and psychiatric sequelae. Dr. Swanson also mentioned an article he wrote more than a decade ago on environmental as well as genetic factors that resulted in etiologic subtypes of ADHD, which provided a model for the impact of COVID-19 on specific brain regions that are associated with ADHD.

So far, the COVID-19 pandemic has produced 150 million cases worldwide and there are about 100 million survivors, setting an estimate of a maximum number of cases with residual sequelae. “I think that severe COVID-19 will probably be related to severe residual sequelae, and that mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 may be associated with less severe residual sequelae, which may resemble ADHD” said Dr. Swanson. If one-third of the cases manifest in some neurologic or psychiatric systems, this means 27 million would have residual sequelae. If 20% have impaired concentration or brain fog, this could result in about 5 million ADHD cases, he said. 
 

Estimates aren’t evidence

The Swanson/Volkow commentary contains a lot of references to “might, could, and may,” said Dr. Coghill. While it’s true that COVID-19 could produce a novel etiologic subtype of ADHD, “the point here is at the moment, all of this is based on hypotheses,” he said.

The Spanish flu did produce mental health consequences – survivors reported depression, sleep disturbances, mental distraction, dizziness, and difficulties coping at work. In the United States, flu death rates from 1918 to 1920 were directly attributed to suicide rates. Unfortunately, these impacts weren’t widely researched, said Dr. Coghill.

It also seems clear that the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak was associated with significant neurological consequences, said Dr. Coghill. By 1919 and 1920, physicians and researchers in the United Kingdom were reporting increases in a variety of symptoms among some patients recovering from flu, such as neuropathy, neurasthenia, meningitis, degenerative changes in nerve cells, and a decline in visual acuity.

The EL cases Dr. Swanson mentioned did coincide with and reach epidemic proportions alongside the Spanish flu. “But still, a causal relationship is far from proven,” said Dr. Coghill.

Sol Levy, MD, described a “disease of criminals” following the 1918 pandemic, in which patients exhibited a high degree of general hyperkinesis, a difficulty in maintaining quiet attitudes, abruptness and clumsiness, and “explosive motor release of all voluntarily inhibited activities.”

However, these impairments suggest a much broader presentation typically seen in ADHD, noted Dr. Coghill.

Neurological complications occur more commonly than initially thought in severe COVID-19, with estimates ranging from 36% to 84%. But in a systematic review of neuropsychiatric complications of severe coronavirus infection, researchers found few psychiatric sequelae of these infections. While they did mention impaired concentration and difficulties with emotional ability, it’s very important to remember that these conditions “are cardinal symptoms of a wide range of psychiatric disorders,” said Dr. Coghill.

Overall, more neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms largely confine to those with severe COVID-19, meaning they’re much less likely to occur in children and young adults, he said.

If there are severe effects of COVID-19, Dr. Swanson countered that “they might have more ADHD than the complex residual effects [Dr. Coghill] described. I hope that he’s right, but I do think there will be biological co-effects of COVID-19 that will produce symptoms that are more ADHD than other neurological disorders.”
 

Epigenetic effects

Researchers are now seeing transgenerational and intergenerational effects of potential infection. “So I certainly back high-quality studies looking at the effects of maternal and paternal infection on offspring,” said Dr. Coghill. Establishing clinical cohort studies to follow up on this population would be essential in understanding the risks of SARS-CoV-2. “That might be one way we’ll see an increase in ADHD,” said Dr. Coghill.

The reality is COVID-19 hasn’t been around for that long, and current knowledge about it is limited, he said. Rapid publications, cross-sectional or retrospective data, and poor methodological quality and rigor make generalizability difficult. In addition, limited testing and detection probably underestimate prevalence of neurological and neuropsychiatric complications.

“If history teaches us anything, it is that we should always be measured in how we glean lessons from the past. So let’s not get ahead of ourselves,” he cautioned.

An informal, post-discussion survey of session participants revealed that a slight majority – 55%-60% – expected residual effects of COVID-19 to lead to more ADHD, compared to 40%-45% who didn’t think this would happen.

Dr. Swanson has two patents: (PIXA4), which uses a “time-of-flight” camera to measure growth on infants, and a provisional patent on the mechanism of tolerance to stimulant medication (PATSMTA). Dr. Coghill worked for several pharmaceutical companies but had no disclosures relevant to this debate.

While it’s possible that residual effects of SARS-CoV-2 could lead to an eruption of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) cases, a debate at the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event underscored the fact that this is still a hypothesis. The bottom line is there needs to be more data, said Luis Augusto Rohde, MD, PhD, cochair of the congress’ scientific program committee and moderator of the session, “Residual effects of the 2019 pandemic will mirror the 1918 pandemic: Will we have lots of new ADHD cases?”

Considering the current pattern of the pandemic, there is not enough evidence for this to be a concern, Dr. Rohde said in an interview.

James Swanson, PhD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, Irvine, opined that biological co-effects of COVID-19 are likely to have selective effects in children that may produce symptoms representative of ADHD. Using the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic as a historical reference, he estimated that COVID-19 would produce 5 million individuals with new-onset symptoms related to ADHD. “If these cases meet DSM-5 or ICD-11 criteria, there will be lots of new ADHD cases,” he predicted.

David Coghill, MD, a professor of child adolescent mental health at the University of Melbourne, observed that the sums Dr. Swanson presented “are based on maxing out the potential rather than looking at the sums more realistically.”
 

Could the 1918 pandemic offer clues?

In a commentary, Dr. Swanson and Nora D. Volkow, MD, wrote about “lessons learned” from the 1918 pandemic, and how residual sequelae in that era led to a condition labeled hyperkinetic syndrome in children. “It may be worthwhile to consider the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic may result in a novel etiologic subtype of ADHD that clinicians may recognize in patients in the future,” wrote the commentators. 

In survivors of the 1918 pandemic, brain inflammation or encephalitis sometimes emerged as residual sequelae, said Dr. Swanson. In some adult cases, these symptoms were diagnosed as “encephalitis lethargica” (EL) and were associated with Parkinson’s disease. In 1930, based on patients evaluated after 1918, researchers Franz Kramer and Hans Pollnow at Charité Hospital in Berlin described the behavioral manifestation of EL in children as hyperkinetic syndrome, a condition that was characterized by symptoms similar to the properties of ADHD: lack of concentration, insufficient goal orientation, and increased distractibility. “They even reported on autopsy cases that described brain regions that we now know are associated with ADHD from decades of brain imaging studies,” said Dr. Swanson.

COVID-19 rarely results in severe respiratory problems in children but the absolute number requiring hospitalization has accumulated and is now relatively large, said Dr. Swanson. One study of 1,695 severe COVID-19 cases in children and adolescents used MRI and detected neural effects in specific brain regions such as basal ganglia and frontal lobes that previous research had associated with ADHD. Approximately 22% of these rare but severe cases had documented neurologic involvement, and studies of affected children with mild or none of the initial respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 also detected similar selective effects in these brain regions.

A recent survey of medical records of 80 million people that identified 240,000 COVID cases (mostly adults) revealed that a third had neurological and psychiatric sequelae. Dr. Swanson also mentioned an article he wrote more than a decade ago on environmental as well as genetic factors that resulted in etiologic subtypes of ADHD, which provided a model for the impact of COVID-19 on specific brain regions that are associated with ADHD.

So far, the COVID-19 pandemic has produced 150 million cases worldwide and there are about 100 million survivors, setting an estimate of a maximum number of cases with residual sequelae. “I think that severe COVID-19 will probably be related to severe residual sequelae, and that mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 may be associated with less severe residual sequelae, which may resemble ADHD” said Dr. Swanson. If one-third of the cases manifest in some neurologic or psychiatric systems, this means 27 million would have residual sequelae. If 20% have impaired concentration or brain fog, this could result in about 5 million ADHD cases, he said. 
 

Estimates aren’t evidence

The Swanson/Volkow commentary contains a lot of references to “might, could, and may,” said Dr. Coghill. While it’s true that COVID-19 could produce a novel etiologic subtype of ADHD, “the point here is at the moment, all of this is based on hypotheses,” he said.

The Spanish flu did produce mental health consequences – survivors reported depression, sleep disturbances, mental distraction, dizziness, and difficulties coping at work. In the United States, flu death rates from 1918 to 1920 were directly attributed to suicide rates. Unfortunately, these impacts weren’t widely researched, said Dr. Coghill.

It also seems clear that the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak was associated with significant neurological consequences, said Dr. Coghill. By 1919 and 1920, physicians and researchers in the United Kingdom were reporting increases in a variety of symptoms among some patients recovering from flu, such as neuropathy, neurasthenia, meningitis, degenerative changes in nerve cells, and a decline in visual acuity.

The EL cases Dr. Swanson mentioned did coincide with and reach epidemic proportions alongside the Spanish flu. “But still, a causal relationship is far from proven,” said Dr. Coghill.

Sol Levy, MD, described a “disease of criminals” following the 1918 pandemic, in which patients exhibited a high degree of general hyperkinesis, a difficulty in maintaining quiet attitudes, abruptness and clumsiness, and “explosive motor release of all voluntarily inhibited activities.”

However, these impairments suggest a much broader presentation typically seen in ADHD, noted Dr. Coghill.

Neurological complications occur more commonly than initially thought in severe COVID-19, with estimates ranging from 36% to 84%. But in a systematic review of neuropsychiatric complications of severe coronavirus infection, researchers found few psychiatric sequelae of these infections. While they did mention impaired concentration and difficulties with emotional ability, it’s very important to remember that these conditions “are cardinal symptoms of a wide range of psychiatric disorders,” said Dr. Coghill.

Overall, more neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms largely confine to those with severe COVID-19, meaning they’re much less likely to occur in children and young adults, he said.

If there are severe effects of COVID-19, Dr. Swanson countered that “they might have more ADHD than the complex residual effects [Dr. Coghill] described. I hope that he’s right, but I do think there will be biological co-effects of COVID-19 that will produce symptoms that are more ADHD than other neurological disorders.”
 

Epigenetic effects

Researchers are now seeing transgenerational and intergenerational effects of potential infection. “So I certainly back high-quality studies looking at the effects of maternal and paternal infection on offspring,” said Dr. Coghill. Establishing clinical cohort studies to follow up on this population would be essential in understanding the risks of SARS-CoV-2. “That might be one way we’ll see an increase in ADHD,” said Dr. Coghill.

The reality is COVID-19 hasn’t been around for that long, and current knowledge about it is limited, he said. Rapid publications, cross-sectional or retrospective data, and poor methodological quality and rigor make generalizability difficult. In addition, limited testing and detection probably underestimate prevalence of neurological and neuropsychiatric complications.

“If history teaches us anything, it is that we should always be measured in how we glean lessons from the past. So let’s not get ahead of ourselves,” he cautioned.

An informal, post-discussion survey of session participants revealed that a slight majority – 55%-60% – expected residual effects of COVID-19 to lead to more ADHD, compared to 40%-45% who didn’t think this would happen.

Dr. Swanson has two patents: (PIXA4), which uses a “time-of-flight” camera to measure growth on infants, and a provisional patent on the mechanism of tolerance to stimulant medication (PATSMTA). Dr. Coghill worked for several pharmaceutical companies but had no disclosures relevant to this debate.

While it’s possible that residual effects of SARS-CoV-2 could lead to an eruption of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) cases, a debate at the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event underscored the fact that this is still a hypothesis. The bottom line is there needs to be more data, said Luis Augusto Rohde, MD, PhD, cochair of the congress’ scientific program committee and moderator of the session, “Residual effects of the 2019 pandemic will mirror the 1918 pandemic: Will we have lots of new ADHD cases?”

Considering the current pattern of the pandemic, there is not enough evidence for this to be a concern, Dr. Rohde said in an interview.

James Swanson, PhD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, Irvine, opined that biological co-effects of COVID-19 are likely to have selective effects in children that may produce symptoms representative of ADHD. Using the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic as a historical reference, he estimated that COVID-19 would produce 5 million individuals with new-onset symptoms related to ADHD. “If these cases meet DSM-5 or ICD-11 criteria, there will be lots of new ADHD cases,” he predicted.

David Coghill, MD, a professor of child adolescent mental health at the University of Melbourne, observed that the sums Dr. Swanson presented “are based on maxing out the potential rather than looking at the sums more realistically.”
 

Could the 1918 pandemic offer clues?

In a commentary, Dr. Swanson and Nora D. Volkow, MD, wrote about “lessons learned” from the 1918 pandemic, and how residual sequelae in that era led to a condition labeled hyperkinetic syndrome in children. “It may be worthwhile to consider the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic may result in a novel etiologic subtype of ADHD that clinicians may recognize in patients in the future,” wrote the commentators. 

In survivors of the 1918 pandemic, brain inflammation or encephalitis sometimes emerged as residual sequelae, said Dr. Swanson. In some adult cases, these symptoms were diagnosed as “encephalitis lethargica” (EL) and were associated with Parkinson’s disease. In 1930, based on patients evaluated after 1918, researchers Franz Kramer and Hans Pollnow at Charité Hospital in Berlin described the behavioral manifestation of EL in children as hyperkinetic syndrome, a condition that was characterized by symptoms similar to the properties of ADHD: lack of concentration, insufficient goal orientation, and increased distractibility. “They even reported on autopsy cases that described brain regions that we now know are associated with ADHD from decades of brain imaging studies,” said Dr. Swanson.

COVID-19 rarely results in severe respiratory problems in children but the absolute number requiring hospitalization has accumulated and is now relatively large, said Dr. Swanson. One study of 1,695 severe COVID-19 cases in children and adolescents used MRI and detected neural effects in specific brain regions such as basal ganglia and frontal lobes that previous research had associated with ADHD. Approximately 22% of these rare but severe cases had documented neurologic involvement, and studies of affected children with mild or none of the initial respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 also detected similar selective effects in these brain regions.

A recent survey of medical records of 80 million people that identified 240,000 COVID cases (mostly adults) revealed that a third had neurological and psychiatric sequelae. Dr. Swanson also mentioned an article he wrote more than a decade ago on environmental as well as genetic factors that resulted in etiologic subtypes of ADHD, which provided a model for the impact of COVID-19 on specific brain regions that are associated with ADHD.

So far, the COVID-19 pandemic has produced 150 million cases worldwide and there are about 100 million survivors, setting an estimate of a maximum number of cases with residual sequelae. “I think that severe COVID-19 will probably be related to severe residual sequelae, and that mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 may be associated with less severe residual sequelae, which may resemble ADHD” said Dr. Swanson. If one-third of the cases manifest in some neurologic or psychiatric systems, this means 27 million would have residual sequelae. If 20% have impaired concentration or brain fog, this could result in about 5 million ADHD cases, he said. 
 

Estimates aren’t evidence

The Swanson/Volkow commentary contains a lot of references to “might, could, and may,” said Dr. Coghill. While it’s true that COVID-19 could produce a novel etiologic subtype of ADHD, “the point here is at the moment, all of this is based on hypotheses,” he said.

The Spanish flu did produce mental health consequences – survivors reported depression, sleep disturbances, mental distraction, dizziness, and difficulties coping at work. In the United States, flu death rates from 1918 to 1920 were directly attributed to suicide rates. Unfortunately, these impacts weren’t widely researched, said Dr. Coghill.

It also seems clear that the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak was associated with significant neurological consequences, said Dr. Coghill. By 1919 and 1920, physicians and researchers in the United Kingdom were reporting increases in a variety of symptoms among some patients recovering from flu, such as neuropathy, neurasthenia, meningitis, degenerative changes in nerve cells, and a decline in visual acuity.

The EL cases Dr. Swanson mentioned did coincide with and reach epidemic proportions alongside the Spanish flu. “But still, a causal relationship is far from proven,” said Dr. Coghill.

Sol Levy, MD, described a “disease of criminals” following the 1918 pandemic, in which patients exhibited a high degree of general hyperkinesis, a difficulty in maintaining quiet attitudes, abruptness and clumsiness, and “explosive motor release of all voluntarily inhibited activities.”

However, these impairments suggest a much broader presentation typically seen in ADHD, noted Dr. Coghill.

Neurological complications occur more commonly than initially thought in severe COVID-19, with estimates ranging from 36% to 84%. But in a systematic review of neuropsychiatric complications of severe coronavirus infection, researchers found few psychiatric sequelae of these infections. While they did mention impaired concentration and difficulties with emotional ability, it’s very important to remember that these conditions “are cardinal symptoms of a wide range of psychiatric disorders,” said Dr. Coghill.

Overall, more neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms largely confine to those with severe COVID-19, meaning they’re much less likely to occur in children and young adults, he said.

If there are severe effects of COVID-19, Dr. Swanson countered that “they might have more ADHD than the complex residual effects [Dr. Coghill] described. I hope that he’s right, but I do think there will be biological co-effects of COVID-19 that will produce symptoms that are more ADHD than other neurological disorders.”
 

Epigenetic effects

Researchers are now seeing transgenerational and intergenerational effects of potential infection. “So I certainly back high-quality studies looking at the effects of maternal and paternal infection on offspring,” said Dr. Coghill. Establishing clinical cohort studies to follow up on this population would be essential in understanding the risks of SARS-CoV-2. “That might be one way we’ll see an increase in ADHD,” said Dr. Coghill.

The reality is COVID-19 hasn’t been around for that long, and current knowledge about it is limited, he said. Rapid publications, cross-sectional or retrospective data, and poor methodological quality and rigor make generalizability difficult. In addition, limited testing and detection probably underestimate prevalence of neurological and neuropsychiatric complications.

“If history teaches us anything, it is that we should always be measured in how we glean lessons from the past. So let’s not get ahead of ourselves,” he cautioned.

An informal, post-discussion survey of session participants revealed that a slight majority – 55%-60% – expected residual effects of COVID-19 to lead to more ADHD, compared to 40%-45% who didn’t think this would happen.

Dr. Swanson has two patents: (PIXA4), which uses a “time-of-flight” camera to measure growth on infants, and a provisional patent on the mechanism of tolerance to stimulant medication (PATSMTA). Dr. Coghill worked for several pharmaceutical companies but had no disclosures relevant to this debate.