User login
Neurology Reviews covers innovative and emerging news in neurology and neuroscience every month, with a focus on practical approaches to treating Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, headache, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and other neurologic disorders.
PML
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Rituxan
The leading independent newspaper covering neurology news and commentary.
‘Striking’ rate of mental health comorbidities in epilepsy
NASHVILLE, TENN. – , new research reveals.
“We hope these results inspire epileptologists and neurologists to both recognize and screen for suicide ideation and behaviors in their adolescent patients,” said study investigator Hadley Greenwood, a third-year medical student at New York University.
The new data should also encourage providers “to become more comfortable” providing support to patients, “be that by increasing their familiarity with prescribing different antidepressants or by being well versed in how to connect patients to resources within their community,” said Mr. Greenwood.
The findings were presented here at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
Little research
Previous studies have reported on the prevalence of suicidality as well as depression and anxiety among adults with epilepsy. “We wanted to look at adolescents because there’s much less in the literature out there about psychiatric comorbidity, and specifically suicidality, in this population,” said Mr. Greenwood.
Researchers used data from the Human Epilepsy Project, a study that collected data from 34 sites in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia from 2012 to 2017.
From a cohort of more than 400 participants, researchers identified 67 patients aged 11-17 years who were enrolled within 4 months of starting treatment for focal epilepsy.
Participants completed the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) at enrollment and at follow-ups over 36 months. The C-SSRS measures suicidal ideation and severity, said Mr. Greenwood.
“It’s scaled from passive suicide ideation, such as thoughts of ‘I wish I were dead’ without active intent, all the way up to active suicidal ideation with a plan and intent.”
Researchers were able to distinguish individuals with passive suicide ideation from those with more serious intentions, said Mr. Greenwood. They used medical records to evaluate the prevalence of suicidal ideation and behavior.
The investigators found that more than one in five (20.9%) teens endorsed any lifetime suicide ideation. This, said Mr. Greenwood, is “roughly equivalent” to the prevalence reported earlier in the adult cohort of the Human Epilepsy Project (21.6%).
‘Striking’ rate
The fact that one in five adolescents had any lifetime suicide ideation is “definitely a striking number,” said Mr. Greenwood.
Researchers found that 15% of patients experienced active suicide ideation, 7.5% exhibited preparatory or suicidal behaviors, and 3% had made a prior suicide attempt.
All of these percentages increased at 3 years: Thirty-one percent for suicide ideation; 25% for active suicide behavior, 15% for preparatory or suicide behaviors, and 5% for prior suicide attempt.
The fact that nearly one in three adolescents endorsed suicide ideation at 3 years is another “striking” finding, said Mr. Greenwood.
Of the 53 adolescents who had never had suicide ideation at the time of enrollment, 7 endorsed new-onset suicide ideation in the follow-up period. Five of 14 who had had suicide ideation at some point prior to enrollment continued to endorse it.
“The value of the study is identifying the prevalence and identifying the significant number of adolescents with epilepsy who are endorsing either suicide ideation or suicidal behaviors,” said Mr. Greenwood.
The researchers found that among younger teens (aged 11–14 years) rates of suicide ideation were higher than among their older counterparts (aged 15–17 years).
The study does not shed light on the biological connection between epilepsy and suicidality, but Mr. Greenwood noted that prior research has suggested a bidirectional relationship.
“Depression and other psychiatric comorbidities might exist prior to epileptic activity and actually predispose to epileptic activity.”
Mr. Greenwood noted that suicide ideation has “spiked” recently across the general population, and so it’s difficult to compare the prevalence in her study with “today’s prevalence.”
However, other research generally shows that the suicide ideation rate in the general adolescent population is much lower than in teens with epilepsy.
Unique aspects of the current study are that it reports suicide ideation and behaviors at around the time of an epilepsy diagnosis and documents how suicidality progresses or resolves over time, said Mr. Greenwood.
Underdiagnosed, undertreated
Commenting on the research, Elizabeth Donner, MD, director of the comprehensive epilepsy program, Hospital for Sick Children, and associate professor, department of pediatrics, University of Toronto, said a “key point” from the study is that the suicidality rate among teens with epilepsy exceeds that of children not living with epilepsy.
“We are significantly underdiagnosing and undertreating the mental health comorbidities in epilepsy,” said Dr. Donner. “Epilepsy is a brain disease and so are mental health disorders, so it shouldn’t come as any surprise that they coexist in individuals with epilepsy.”
The new results contribute to what is already known about the significant mortality rates among persons with epilepsy, said Dr. Donner. She referred to a 2018 study that showed that people with epilepsy were 3.5 times more likely to die by suicide.
Other research has shown that people with epilepsy are 10 times more likely to die by drowning, mostly in the bathtub, said Dr. Donner.
“You would think that we’re educating these people about risks related to their epilepsy, but either the messages don’t get through, or they don’t know how to keep themselves safe,” she said.
“This needs to be seen in a bigger picture, and the bigger picture is we need to recognize comorbid mental health issues; we need to address them once recognized; and then we need to counsel and support people to live safely with their epilepsy.
The study received funding from the Epilepsy Study Consortium, Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (FACES) and other related foundations, UCB, Pfizer, Eisai, Lundbeck, and Sunovion. Mr. Greenwood and Dr. Donner report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – , new research reveals.
“We hope these results inspire epileptologists and neurologists to both recognize and screen for suicide ideation and behaviors in their adolescent patients,” said study investigator Hadley Greenwood, a third-year medical student at New York University.
The new data should also encourage providers “to become more comfortable” providing support to patients, “be that by increasing their familiarity with prescribing different antidepressants or by being well versed in how to connect patients to resources within their community,” said Mr. Greenwood.
The findings were presented here at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
Little research
Previous studies have reported on the prevalence of suicidality as well as depression and anxiety among adults with epilepsy. “We wanted to look at adolescents because there’s much less in the literature out there about psychiatric comorbidity, and specifically suicidality, in this population,” said Mr. Greenwood.
Researchers used data from the Human Epilepsy Project, a study that collected data from 34 sites in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia from 2012 to 2017.
From a cohort of more than 400 participants, researchers identified 67 patients aged 11-17 years who were enrolled within 4 months of starting treatment for focal epilepsy.
Participants completed the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) at enrollment and at follow-ups over 36 months. The C-SSRS measures suicidal ideation and severity, said Mr. Greenwood.
“It’s scaled from passive suicide ideation, such as thoughts of ‘I wish I were dead’ without active intent, all the way up to active suicidal ideation with a plan and intent.”
Researchers were able to distinguish individuals with passive suicide ideation from those with more serious intentions, said Mr. Greenwood. They used medical records to evaluate the prevalence of suicidal ideation and behavior.
The investigators found that more than one in five (20.9%) teens endorsed any lifetime suicide ideation. This, said Mr. Greenwood, is “roughly equivalent” to the prevalence reported earlier in the adult cohort of the Human Epilepsy Project (21.6%).
‘Striking’ rate
The fact that one in five adolescents had any lifetime suicide ideation is “definitely a striking number,” said Mr. Greenwood.
Researchers found that 15% of patients experienced active suicide ideation, 7.5% exhibited preparatory or suicidal behaviors, and 3% had made a prior suicide attempt.
All of these percentages increased at 3 years: Thirty-one percent for suicide ideation; 25% for active suicide behavior, 15% for preparatory or suicide behaviors, and 5% for prior suicide attempt.
The fact that nearly one in three adolescents endorsed suicide ideation at 3 years is another “striking” finding, said Mr. Greenwood.
Of the 53 adolescents who had never had suicide ideation at the time of enrollment, 7 endorsed new-onset suicide ideation in the follow-up period. Five of 14 who had had suicide ideation at some point prior to enrollment continued to endorse it.
“The value of the study is identifying the prevalence and identifying the significant number of adolescents with epilepsy who are endorsing either suicide ideation or suicidal behaviors,” said Mr. Greenwood.
The researchers found that among younger teens (aged 11–14 years) rates of suicide ideation were higher than among their older counterparts (aged 15–17 years).
The study does not shed light on the biological connection between epilepsy and suicidality, but Mr. Greenwood noted that prior research has suggested a bidirectional relationship.
“Depression and other psychiatric comorbidities might exist prior to epileptic activity and actually predispose to epileptic activity.”
Mr. Greenwood noted that suicide ideation has “spiked” recently across the general population, and so it’s difficult to compare the prevalence in her study with “today’s prevalence.”
However, other research generally shows that the suicide ideation rate in the general adolescent population is much lower than in teens with epilepsy.
Unique aspects of the current study are that it reports suicide ideation and behaviors at around the time of an epilepsy diagnosis and documents how suicidality progresses or resolves over time, said Mr. Greenwood.
Underdiagnosed, undertreated
Commenting on the research, Elizabeth Donner, MD, director of the comprehensive epilepsy program, Hospital for Sick Children, and associate professor, department of pediatrics, University of Toronto, said a “key point” from the study is that the suicidality rate among teens with epilepsy exceeds that of children not living with epilepsy.
“We are significantly underdiagnosing and undertreating the mental health comorbidities in epilepsy,” said Dr. Donner. “Epilepsy is a brain disease and so are mental health disorders, so it shouldn’t come as any surprise that they coexist in individuals with epilepsy.”
The new results contribute to what is already known about the significant mortality rates among persons with epilepsy, said Dr. Donner. She referred to a 2018 study that showed that people with epilepsy were 3.5 times more likely to die by suicide.
Other research has shown that people with epilepsy are 10 times more likely to die by drowning, mostly in the bathtub, said Dr. Donner.
“You would think that we’re educating these people about risks related to their epilepsy, but either the messages don’t get through, or they don’t know how to keep themselves safe,” she said.
“This needs to be seen in a bigger picture, and the bigger picture is we need to recognize comorbid mental health issues; we need to address them once recognized; and then we need to counsel and support people to live safely with their epilepsy.
The study received funding from the Epilepsy Study Consortium, Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (FACES) and other related foundations, UCB, Pfizer, Eisai, Lundbeck, and Sunovion. Mr. Greenwood and Dr. Donner report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – , new research reveals.
“We hope these results inspire epileptologists and neurologists to both recognize and screen for suicide ideation and behaviors in their adolescent patients,” said study investigator Hadley Greenwood, a third-year medical student at New York University.
The new data should also encourage providers “to become more comfortable” providing support to patients, “be that by increasing their familiarity with prescribing different antidepressants or by being well versed in how to connect patients to resources within their community,” said Mr. Greenwood.
The findings were presented here at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
Little research
Previous studies have reported on the prevalence of suicidality as well as depression and anxiety among adults with epilepsy. “We wanted to look at adolescents because there’s much less in the literature out there about psychiatric comorbidity, and specifically suicidality, in this population,” said Mr. Greenwood.
Researchers used data from the Human Epilepsy Project, a study that collected data from 34 sites in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia from 2012 to 2017.
From a cohort of more than 400 participants, researchers identified 67 patients aged 11-17 years who were enrolled within 4 months of starting treatment for focal epilepsy.
Participants completed the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) at enrollment and at follow-ups over 36 months. The C-SSRS measures suicidal ideation and severity, said Mr. Greenwood.
“It’s scaled from passive suicide ideation, such as thoughts of ‘I wish I were dead’ without active intent, all the way up to active suicidal ideation with a plan and intent.”
Researchers were able to distinguish individuals with passive suicide ideation from those with more serious intentions, said Mr. Greenwood. They used medical records to evaluate the prevalence of suicidal ideation and behavior.
The investigators found that more than one in five (20.9%) teens endorsed any lifetime suicide ideation. This, said Mr. Greenwood, is “roughly equivalent” to the prevalence reported earlier in the adult cohort of the Human Epilepsy Project (21.6%).
‘Striking’ rate
The fact that one in five adolescents had any lifetime suicide ideation is “definitely a striking number,” said Mr. Greenwood.
Researchers found that 15% of patients experienced active suicide ideation, 7.5% exhibited preparatory or suicidal behaviors, and 3% had made a prior suicide attempt.
All of these percentages increased at 3 years: Thirty-one percent for suicide ideation; 25% for active suicide behavior, 15% for preparatory or suicide behaviors, and 5% for prior suicide attempt.
The fact that nearly one in three adolescents endorsed suicide ideation at 3 years is another “striking” finding, said Mr. Greenwood.
Of the 53 adolescents who had never had suicide ideation at the time of enrollment, 7 endorsed new-onset suicide ideation in the follow-up period. Five of 14 who had had suicide ideation at some point prior to enrollment continued to endorse it.
“The value of the study is identifying the prevalence and identifying the significant number of adolescents with epilepsy who are endorsing either suicide ideation or suicidal behaviors,” said Mr. Greenwood.
The researchers found that among younger teens (aged 11–14 years) rates of suicide ideation were higher than among their older counterparts (aged 15–17 years).
The study does not shed light on the biological connection between epilepsy and suicidality, but Mr. Greenwood noted that prior research has suggested a bidirectional relationship.
“Depression and other psychiatric comorbidities might exist prior to epileptic activity and actually predispose to epileptic activity.”
Mr. Greenwood noted that suicide ideation has “spiked” recently across the general population, and so it’s difficult to compare the prevalence in her study with “today’s prevalence.”
However, other research generally shows that the suicide ideation rate in the general adolescent population is much lower than in teens with epilepsy.
Unique aspects of the current study are that it reports suicide ideation and behaviors at around the time of an epilepsy diagnosis and documents how suicidality progresses or resolves over time, said Mr. Greenwood.
Underdiagnosed, undertreated
Commenting on the research, Elizabeth Donner, MD, director of the comprehensive epilepsy program, Hospital for Sick Children, and associate professor, department of pediatrics, University of Toronto, said a “key point” from the study is that the suicidality rate among teens with epilepsy exceeds that of children not living with epilepsy.
“We are significantly underdiagnosing and undertreating the mental health comorbidities in epilepsy,” said Dr. Donner. “Epilepsy is a brain disease and so are mental health disorders, so it shouldn’t come as any surprise that they coexist in individuals with epilepsy.”
The new results contribute to what is already known about the significant mortality rates among persons with epilepsy, said Dr. Donner. She referred to a 2018 study that showed that people with epilepsy were 3.5 times more likely to die by suicide.
Other research has shown that people with epilepsy are 10 times more likely to die by drowning, mostly in the bathtub, said Dr. Donner.
“You would think that we’re educating these people about risks related to their epilepsy, but either the messages don’t get through, or they don’t know how to keep themselves safe,” she said.
“This needs to be seen in a bigger picture, and the bigger picture is we need to recognize comorbid mental health issues; we need to address them once recognized; and then we need to counsel and support people to live safely with their epilepsy.
The study received funding from the Epilepsy Study Consortium, Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (FACES) and other related foundations, UCB, Pfizer, Eisai, Lundbeck, and Sunovion. Mr. Greenwood and Dr. Donner report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AES 2022
Significant racial disparities persist in status epilepticus
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Investigators found that among Black patients with status epilepticus, the hospitalization rate was twice that of their White counterparts. Other findings reveal age and income disparities.
“The results suggest that racial minorities, those with a lower income, and the elderly are an appropriate target to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequality,” said Gabriela Tantillo Sepúlveda, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
An examination of outcomes
Status epilepticus is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Disparities in epilepsy care have previously been described, but little attention has been paid to the contribution of disparities to status epilepticus care and associated outcomes.
Researchers used 2010-2019 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database covering a cross-section of hospitalizations in 48 states and the District of Columbia. From relevant diagnostic codes, they calculated status epilepticus prevalence as the rate per 10,000 hospitalizations and stratified this by demographics.
Over the study period, investigators identified 486,861 status epilepticus hospitalizations, most (71.3%) at urban teaching hospitals.
Status epilepticus prevalence was highest for non-Hispanic Black patients, at 27.3, followed by non-Hispanic others, at 16.1, Hispanic patients, at 15.8, and non-Hispanic-White patients, at 13.7 (P < .01).
The finding that Black patients had double the rate as White patients was “definitely surprising,” said Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda.
Research over the past 20 years revealed similar disparities related to status epilepticus, “so it’s upsetting that these disparities have persisted. Unfortunately, we still have a lot of work to do to reduce health inequalities,” she said.
The investigators found that the prevalence of status epilepticus was higher in the lowest-income quartile, compared with the highest (18.7 vs. 14; P < .01).
Need for physician advocacy
Unlike previous studies, this research assessed various interventions in different age groups and showed that the likelihood of intubation, tracheostomy, gastrostomy, and in-hospital mortality increased with age.
For example, compared with the reference group (patients aged 18-39 years), the odds of intubation were 1.22 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.27) for those aged 40-59 years and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.42-1.54) for those aged 60-79. Those aged 80 and older were most likely to be intubated, at an odds ratio of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.43-1.58).
Elderly patients were most likely to undergo tracheostomy (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.75-2.27), gastrostomy (OR, 3.37; 95% CI, 2.97-3.83), and to experience in-hospital mortality (OR, 6.51; 95% CI, 5.95-7.13), compared with the youngest patients.
These intervention rates also varied by racial/ethnic groups. Minority populations, particularly Black people, had higher odds of tracheostomy and gastrostomy, compared with non-Hispanic White persons.
The odds of undergoing electroencephalography monitoring progressively rose as income level increased (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.62) for the highest income quartile versus the lowest quartile. The odds of undergoing EEG monitoring were also higher at urban teaching hospitals than at rural hospitals.
Tackling these disparities in this patient population include increasing resources, personnel, and health education aimed at minorities, low-income patients, and the elderly, said Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda. She added that more research is needed “to determine the most effective ways of accomplishing this goal.”
The medical community can help reduce disparities, said Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda, by working to improve health literacy, to reduce stigma associated with seizures, and to increase awareness of seizure risk factors.
They can also work to expand access to outpatient neurology clinics, epilepsy monitoring units, and epilepsy surgery. “Ethnic and racial minorities are less likely to receive epilepsy surgery for temporal lobe epilepsy, which has been shown to improve quality of life and reduce seizure burden,” Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda noted.
Across-the-board problem
Commenting on the research, Daniel Lowenstein, MD, professor of neurology, University of California, San Francisco, said the findings aren’t at all surprising. “It’s yet another piece of evidence on what has now become a rather voluminous literature that documents the very significant disparities that exist in our health care system,” said Dr. Lowenstein. “There’s just a huge literature on ‘name your disease and you’ll see the disparities.’ ”
Disparities exist, for example, in diagnosing breast cancer and prostate cancer, in the treatment of stroke and in related outcomes, and there is a well-documented “big disparity” in the approach to pain control among patients presenting at the emergency department, said Dr. Lowenstein.
However, he doesn’t know how disparities in epilepsy and specifically in status epilepticus, compared with disparities regarding other diseases and disorders. He noted that in the case of epilepsy, the situation is likely exacerbated by the stigma associated with that disease.
Dr. Lowenstein agreed that clinicians should play a role in reversing disparities. “We as physicians have a responsibility to be a voice for change in our health care system.”
The study was supported by the Center of Excellence for health equity, training, and research at the Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda and Dr. Lowenstein report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Investigators found that among Black patients with status epilepticus, the hospitalization rate was twice that of their White counterparts. Other findings reveal age and income disparities.
“The results suggest that racial minorities, those with a lower income, and the elderly are an appropriate target to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequality,” said Gabriela Tantillo Sepúlveda, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
An examination of outcomes
Status epilepticus is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Disparities in epilepsy care have previously been described, but little attention has been paid to the contribution of disparities to status epilepticus care and associated outcomes.
Researchers used 2010-2019 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database covering a cross-section of hospitalizations in 48 states and the District of Columbia. From relevant diagnostic codes, they calculated status epilepticus prevalence as the rate per 10,000 hospitalizations and stratified this by demographics.
Over the study period, investigators identified 486,861 status epilepticus hospitalizations, most (71.3%) at urban teaching hospitals.
Status epilepticus prevalence was highest for non-Hispanic Black patients, at 27.3, followed by non-Hispanic others, at 16.1, Hispanic patients, at 15.8, and non-Hispanic-White patients, at 13.7 (P < .01).
The finding that Black patients had double the rate as White patients was “definitely surprising,” said Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda.
Research over the past 20 years revealed similar disparities related to status epilepticus, “so it’s upsetting that these disparities have persisted. Unfortunately, we still have a lot of work to do to reduce health inequalities,” she said.
The investigators found that the prevalence of status epilepticus was higher in the lowest-income quartile, compared with the highest (18.7 vs. 14; P < .01).
Need for physician advocacy
Unlike previous studies, this research assessed various interventions in different age groups and showed that the likelihood of intubation, tracheostomy, gastrostomy, and in-hospital mortality increased with age.
For example, compared with the reference group (patients aged 18-39 years), the odds of intubation were 1.22 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.27) for those aged 40-59 years and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.42-1.54) for those aged 60-79. Those aged 80 and older were most likely to be intubated, at an odds ratio of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.43-1.58).
Elderly patients were most likely to undergo tracheostomy (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.75-2.27), gastrostomy (OR, 3.37; 95% CI, 2.97-3.83), and to experience in-hospital mortality (OR, 6.51; 95% CI, 5.95-7.13), compared with the youngest patients.
These intervention rates also varied by racial/ethnic groups. Minority populations, particularly Black people, had higher odds of tracheostomy and gastrostomy, compared with non-Hispanic White persons.
The odds of undergoing electroencephalography monitoring progressively rose as income level increased (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.62) for the highest income quartile versus the lowest quartile. The odds of undergoing EEG monitoring were also higher at urban teaching hospitals than at rural hospitals.
Tackling these disparities in this patient population include increasing resources, personnel, and health education aimed at minorities, low-income patients, and the elderly, said Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda. She added that more research is needed “to determine the most effective ways of accomplishing this goal.”
The medical community can help reduce disparities, said Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda, by working to improve health literacy, to reduce stigma associated with seizures, and to increase awareness of seizure risk factors.
They can also work to expand access to outpatient neurology clinics, epilepsy monitoring units, and epilepsy surgery. “Ethnic and racial minorities are less likely to receive epilepsy surgery for temporal lobe epilepsy, which has been shown to improve quality of life and reduce seizure burden,” Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda noted.
Across-the-board problem
Commenting on the research, Daniel Lowenstein, MD, professor of neurology, University of California, San Francisco, said the findings aren’t at all surprising. “It’s yet another piece of evidence on what has now become a rather voluminous literature that documents the very significant disparities that exist in our health care system,” said Dr. Lowenstein. “There’s just a huge literature on ‘name your disease and you’ll see the disparities.’ ”
Disparities exist, for example, in diagnosing breast cancer and prostate cancer, in the treatment of stroke and in related outcomes, and there is a well-documented “big disparity” in the approach to pain control among patients presenting at the emergency department, said Dr. Lowenstein.
However, he doesn’t know how disparities in epilepsy and specifically in status epilepticus, compared with disparities regarding other diseases and disorders. He noted that in the case of epilepsy, the situation is likely exacerbated by the stigma associated with that disease.
Dr. Lowenstein agreed that clinicians should play a role in reversing disparities. “We as physicians have a responsibility to be a voice for change in our health care system.”
The study was supported by the Center of Excellence for health equity, training, and research at the Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda and Dr. Lowenstein report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Investigators found that among Black patients with status epilepticus, the hospitalization rate was twice that of their White counterparts. Other findings reveal age and income disparities.
“The results suggest that racial minorities, those with a lower income, and the elderly are an appropriate target to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequality,” said Gabriela Tantillo Sepúlveda, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
An examination of outcomes
Status epilepticus is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Disparities in epilepsy care have previously been described, but little attention has been paid to the contribution of disparities to status epilepticus care and associated outcomes.
Researchers used 2010-2019 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database covering a cross-section of hospitalizations in 48 states and the District of Columbia. From relevant diagnostic codes, they calculated status epilepticus prevalence as the rate per 10,000 hospitalizations and stratified this by demographics.
Over the study period, investigators identified 486,861 status epilepticus hospitalizations, most (71.3%) at urban teaching hospitals.
Status epilepticus prevalence was highest for non-Hispanic Black patients, at 27.3, followed by non-Hispanic others, at 16.1, Hispanic patients, at 15.8, and non-Hispanic-White patients, at 13.7 (P < .01).
The finding that Black patients had double the rate as White patients was “definitely surprising,” said Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda.
Research over the past 20 years revealed similar disparities related to status epilepticus, “so it’s upsetting that these disparities have persisted. Unfortunately, we still have a lot of work to do to reduce health inequalities,” she said.
The investigators found that the prevalence of status epilepticus was higher in the lowest-income quartile, compared with the highest (18.7 vs. 14; P < .01).
Need for physician advocacy
Unlike previous studies, this research assessed various interventions in different age groups and showed that the likelihood of intubation, tracheostomy, gastrostomy, and in-hospital mortality increased with age.
For example, compared with the reference group (patients aged 18-39 years), the odds of intubation were 1.22 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.27) for those aged 40-59 years and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.42-1.54) for those aged 60-79. Those aged 80 and older were most likely to be intubated, at an odds ratio of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.43-1.58).
Elderly patients were most likely to undergo tracheostomy (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.75-2.27), gastrostomy (OR, 3.37; 95% CI, 2.97-3.83), and to experience in-hospital mortality (OR, 6.51; 95% CI, 5.95-7.13), compared with the youngest patients.
These intervention rates also varied by racial/ethnic groups. Minority populations, particularly Black people, had higher odds of tracheostomy and gastrostomy, compared with non-Hispanic White persons.
The odds of undergoing electroencephalography monitoring progressively rose as income level increased (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.62) for the highest income quartile versus the lowest quartile. The odds of undergoing EEG monitoring were also higher at urban teaching hospitals than at rural hospitals.
Tackling these disparities in this patient population include increasing resources, personnel, and health education aimed at minorities, low-income patients, and the elderly, said Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda. She added that more research is needed “to determine the most effective ways of accomplishing this goal.”
The medical community can help reduce disparities, said Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda, by working to improve health literacy, to reduce stigma associated with seizures, and to increase awareness of seizure risk factors.
They can also work to expand access to outpatient neurology clinics, epilepsy monitoring units, and epilepsy surgery. “Ethnic and racial minorities are less likely to receive epilepsy surgery for temporal lobe epilepsy, which has been shown to improve quality of life and reduce seizure burden,” Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda noted.
Across-the-board problem
Commenting on the research, Daniel Lowenstein, MD, professor of neurology, University of California, San Francisco, said the findings aren’t at all surprising. “It’s yet another piece of evidence on what has now become a rather voluminous literature that documents the very significant disparities that exist in our health care system,” said Dr. Lowenstein. “There’s just a huge literature on ‘name your disease and you’ll see the disparities.’ ”
Disparities exist, for example, in diagnosing breast cancer and prostate cancer, in the treatment of stroke and in related outcomes, and there is a well-documented “big disparity” in the approach to pain control among patients presenting at the emergency department, said Dr. Lowenstein.
However, he doesn’t know how disparities in epilepsy and specifically in status epilepticus, compared with disparities regarding other diseases and disorders. He noted that in the case of epilepsy, the situation is likely exacerbated by the stigma associated with that disease.
Dr. Lowenstein agreed that clinicians should play a role in reversing disparities. “We as physicians have a responsibility to be a voice for change in our health care system.”
The study was supported by the Center of Excellence for health equity, training, and research at the Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Tantillo Sepúlveda and Dr. Lowenstein report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AES 2022
SSRI tied to improved cognition in comorbid depression, dementia
The results of the 12-week open-label, single-group study are positive, study investigator Michael Cronquist Christensen, MPA, DrPH, a director with the Lundbeck pharmaceutical company, told this news organization before presenting the results in a poster at the 15th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
“The study confirms earlier findings of improvement in both depressive symptoms and cognitive performance with vortioxetine in patients with depression and dementia and adds to this research that these clinical effects also extend to improvement in health-related quality of life and patients’ daily functioning,” Dr. Christensen said.
“It also demonstrates that patients with depression and comorbid dementia can be safely treated with 20 mg vortioxetine – starting dose of 5 mg for the first week and up-titration to 10 mg at day 8,” he added.
However, he reported that Lundbeck doesn’t plan to seek approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for a new indication. Vortioxetine received FDA approval in 2013 to treat MDD, but 3 years later the agency rejected an expansion of its indication to include cognitive dysfunction.
“Vortioxetine is approved for MDD, but the product can be used in patients with MDD who have other diseases, including other mental illnesses,” Dr. Christensen said.
Potential neurotransmission modulator
Vortioxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and serotonin receptor modulator. According to Dr. Christensen, evidence suggests the drug’s receptor targets “have the potential to modulate neurotransmitter systems that are essential for regulation of cognitive function.”
The researchers recruited 83 individuals aged 55-85 with recurrent MDD that had started before the age of 55. All had MDD episodes within the previous 6 months and comorbid dementia for at least 6 months.
Of the participants, 65.9% were female. In addition, 42.7% had Alzheimer’s disease, 26.8% had mixed-type dementia, and the rest had other types of dementia.
The daily oral dose of vortioxetine started at 5 mg for up to week 1 and then was increased to 10 mg. It was then increased to 20 mg or decreased to 5 mg “based on investigator judgment and patient response.” The average daily dose was 12.3 mg.
In regard to the primary outcome, at week 12 (n = 70), scores on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) fell by a mean of –12.4 (.78, P < .0001), which researchers deemed to be a significant reduction in severe symptoms.
“A significant and clinically meaningful effect was observed from week 1,” the researchers reported.
“As a basis for comparison, we typically see an improvement around 13-14 points during 8 weeks of antidepressant treatment in adults with MDD who do not have dementia,” Dr. Christensen added.
More than a third of patients (35.7%) saw a reduction in MADRS score by more than 50% at week 12, and 17.2% were considered to have reached MDD depression remission, defined as a MADRS score at or under 10.
For secondary outcomes, the total Digit Symbol Substitution test score grew by 0.65 (standardized effect size) by week 12, showing significant improvement (P < .0001). In addition, participants improved on some other cognitive measures, and Dr. Christensen noted that “significant improvement was also observed in the patients’ health-related quality of life and daily functioning.”
A third of patients had drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events.
Vortioxetine is one of the most expensive antidepressants: It has a list price of $444 a month, and no generic version is currently available.
Small trial, open-label design
In a comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “reflects a valuable aspect of treatment research because of the close connection between depression and dementia. Depression is a known risk factor for dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, and those who have dementia may experience depression.”
She cautioned, however, that the trial was small and had an open-label design instead of the “gold standard” of a double-blinded trial with a control group.
The study was funded by Lundbeck, where Dr. Christensen is an employee. Another author is a Lundbeck employee, and a third author reported various disclosures. Dr. Sexton reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of the 12-week open-label, single-group study are positive, study investigator Michael Cronquist Christensen, MPA, DrPH, a director with the Lundbeck pharmaceutical company, told this news organization before presenting the results in a poster at the 15th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
“The study confirms earlier findings of improvement in both depressive symptoms and cognitive performance with vortioxetine in patients with depression and dementia and adds to this research that these clinical effects also extend to improvement in health-related quality of life and patients’ daily functioning,” Dr. Christensen said.
“It also demonstrates that patients with depression and comorbid dementia can be safely treated with 20 mg vortioxetine – starting dose of 5 mg for the first week and up-titration to 10 mg at day 8,” he added.
However, he reported that Lundbeck doesn’t plan to seek approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for a new indication. Vortioxetine received FDA approval in 2013 to treat MDD, but 3 years later the agency rejected an expansion of its indication to include cognitive dysfunction.
“Vortioxetine is approved for MDD, but the product can be used in patients with MDD who have other diseases, including other mental illnesses,” Dr. Christensen said.
Potential neurotransmission modulator
Vortioxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and serotonin receptor modulator. According to Dr. Christensen, evidence suggests the drug’s receptor targets “have the potential to modulate neurotransmitter systems that are essential for regulation of cognitive function.”
The researchers recruited 83 individuals aged 55-85 with recurrent MDD that had started before the age of 55. All had MDD episodes within the previous 6 months and comorbid dementia for at least 6 months.
Of the participants, 65.9% were female. In addition, 42.7% had Alzheimer’s disease, 26.8% had mixed-type dementia, and the rest had other types of dementia.
The daily oral dose of vortioxetine started at 5 mg for up to week 1 and then was increased to 10 mg. It was then increased to 20 mg or decreased to 5 mg “based on investigator judgment and patient response.” The average daily dose was 12.3 mg.
In regard to the primary outcome, at week 12 (n = 70), scores on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) fell by a mean of –12.4 (.78, P < .0001), which researchers deemed to be a significant reduction in severe symptoms.
“A significant and clinically meaningful effect was observed from week 1,” the researchers reported.
“As a basis for comparison, we typically see an improvement around 13-14 points during 8 weeks of antidepressant treatment in adults with MDD who do not have dementia,” Dr. Christensen added.
More than a third of patients (35.7%) saw a reduction in MADRS score by more than 50% at week 12, and 17.2% were considered to have reached MDD depression remission, defined as a MADRS score at or under 10.
For secondary outcomes, the total Digit Symbol Substitution test score grew by 0.65 (standardized effect size) by week 12, showing significant improvement (P < .0001). In addition, participants improved on some other cognitive measures, and Dr. Christensen noted that “significant improvement was also observed in the patients’ health-related quality of life and daily functioning.”
A third of patients had drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events.
Vortioxetine is one of the most expensive antidepressants: It has a list price of $444 a month, and no generic version is currently available.
Small trial, open-label design
In a comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “reflects a valuable aspect of treatment research because of the close connection between depression and dementia. Depression is a known risk factor for dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, and those who have dementia may experience depression.”
She cautioned, however, that the trial was small and had an open-label design instead of the “gold standard” of a double-blinded trial with a control group.
The study was funded by Lundbeck, where Dr. Christensen is an employee. Another author is a Lundbeck employee, and a third author reported various disclosures. Dr. Sexton reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of the 12-week open-label, single-group study are positive, study investigator Michael Cronquist Christensen, MPA, DrPH, a director with the Lundbeck pharmaceutical company, told this news organization before presenting the results in a poster at the 15th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
“The study confirms earlier findings of improvement in both depressive symptoms and cognitive performance with vortioxetine in patients with depression and dementia and adds to this research that these clinical effects also extend to improvement in health-related quality of life and patients’ daily functioning,” Dr. Christensen said.
“It also demonstrates that patients with depression and comorbid dementia can be safely treated with 20 mg vortioxetine – starting dose of 5 mg for the first week and up-titration to 10 mg at day 8,” he added.
However, he reported that Lundbeck doesn’t plan to seek approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for a new indication. Vortioxetine received FDA approval in 2013 to treat MDD, but 3 years later the agency rejected an expansion of its indication to include cognitive dysfunction.
“Vortioxetine is approved for MDD, but the product can be used in patients with MDD who have other diseases, including other mental illnesses,” Dr. Christensen said.
Potential neurotransmission modulator
Vortioxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and serotonin receptor modulator. According to Dr. Christensen, evidence suggests the drug’s receptor targets “have the potential to modulate neurotransmitter systems that are essential for regulation of cognitive function.”
The researchers recruited 83 individuals aged 55-85 with recurrent MDD that had started before the age of 55. All had MDD episodes within the previous 6 months and comorbid dementia for at least 6 months.
Of the participants, 65.9% were female. In addition, 42.7% had Alzheimer’s disease, 26.8% had mixed-type dementia, and the rest had other types of dementia.
The daily oral dose of vortioxetine started at 5 mg for up to week 1 and then was increased to 10 mg. It was then increased to 20 mg or decreased to 5 mg “based on investigator judgment and patient response.” The average daily dose was 12.3 mg.
In regard to the primary outcome, at week 12 (n = 70), scores on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) fell by a mean of –12.4 (.78, P < .0001), which researchers deemed to be a significant reduction in severe symptoms.
“A significant and clinically meaningful effect was observed from week 1,” the researchers reported.
“As a basis for comparison, we typically see an improvement around 13-14 points during 8 weeks of antidepressant treatment in adults with MDD who do not have dementia,” Dr. Christensen added.
More than a third of patients (35.7%) saw a reduction in MADRS score by more than 50% at week 12, and 17.2% were considered to have reached MDD depression remission, defined as a MADRS score at or under 10.
For secondary outcomes, the total Digit Symbol Substitution test score grew by 0.65 (standardized effect size) by week 12, showing significant improvement (P < .0001). In addition, participants improved on some other cognitive measures, and Dr. Christensen noted that “significant improvement was also observed in the patients’ health-related quality of life and daily functioning.”
A third of patients had drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events.
Vortioxetine is one of the most expensive antidepressants: It has a list price of $444 a month, and no generic version is currently available.
Small trial, open-label design
In a comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “reflects a valuable aspect of treatment research because of the close connection between depression and dementia. Depression is a known risk factor for dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, and those who have dementia may experience depression.”
She cautioned, however, that the trial was small and had an open-label design instead of the “gold standard” of a double-blinded trial with a control group.
The study was funded by Lundbeck, where Dr. Christensen is an employee. Another author is a Lundbeck employee, and a third author reported various disclosures. Dr. Sexton reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CTAD 2022
Taking our own advice
Like many Americans, I’m overweight. Working 70-80 hours a week doesn’t leave much time for exercise. I try to do what I can, such as using stairs instead of the elevator, but in a two-story office building that doesn’t get you very far. And when I get home there are still tests to read, dictations to do, finances to catch up on ... which leaves little time for anything else other than eating and sleeping.
Eating better? Easier said than done. When I was single, back in residency, that was easy. I only had one person to shop for and feed, but in a family you need to find something that will keep everyone happy, and with three teenagers that ain’t easy. Everyone wants this, that, or the other, and none of it seems to be particularly good for you.
In the modern era convenience generally beats pretty much everything else. Our lives are hurried. At some point it’s just easier to pick something up or order out than to go to the effort of preparing your own meals. Of course, it’s possible to get something healthy for takeout, but the unhealthy menu items sound so much better, and by that time of day I’m tired, hungry, and stressed, and the will power I had in the morning is pretty much gone.
It’s kind of a medical paradox. Those of us taking care of others often don’t do the same for ourselves. Part of this, as noted in a recent Medscape article, is that we live on schedules that are unrelated to the typical 9-to-5 jobs that most other professionals have, not to mention a very different set of stressors.
At least I haven’t started smoking.
As the article points out, I’m not alone. In fact, it’s reassuring to know other physicians are dealing with the same situation. We often assume we’re alone in our struggles, when the actual truth is the opposite.
All of our medical training doesn’t mean we’re not human. It would be nice if the job made us better able to practice what we preach, but human nature is older than medicine, and we’re susceptible to the same faults and temptations as those of our patients.
And always will be.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Like many Americans, I’m overweight. Working 70-80 hours a week doesn’t leave much time for exercise. I try to do what I can, such as using stairs instead of the elevator, but in a two-story office building that doesn’t get you very far. And when I get home there are still tests to read, dictations to do, finances to catch up on ... which leaves little time for anything else other than eating and sleeping.
Eating better? Easier said than done. When I was single, back in residency, that was easy. I only had one person to shop for and feed, but in a family you need to find something that will keep everyone happy, and with three teenagers that ain’t easy. Everyone wants this, that, or the other, and none of it seems to be particularly good for you.
In the modern era convenience generally beats pretty much everything else. Our lives are hurried. At some point it’s just easier to pick something up or order out than to go to the effort of preparing your own meals. Of course, it’s possible to get something healthy for takeout, but the unhealthy menu items sound so much better, and by that time of day I’m tired, hungry, and stressed, and the will power I had in the morning is pretty much gone.
It’s kind of a medical paradox. Those of us taking care of others often don’t do the same for ourselves. Part of this, as noted in a recent Medscape article, is that we live on schedules that are unrelated to the typical 9-to-5 jobs that most other professionals have, not to mention a very different set of stressors.
At least I haven’t started smoking.
As the article points out, I’m not alone. In fact, it’s reassuring to know other physicians are dealing with the same situation. We often assume we’re alone in our struggles, when the actual truth is the opposite.
All of our medical training doesn’t mean we’re not human. It would be nice if the job made us better able to practice what we preach, but human nature is older than medicine, and we’re susceptible to the same faults and temptations as those of our patients.
And always will be.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Like many Americans, I’m overweight. Working 70-80 hours a week doesn’t leave much time for exercise. I try to do what I can, such as using stairs instead of the elevator, but in a two-story office building that doesn’t get you very far. And when I get home there are still tests to read, dictations to do, finances to catch up on ... which leaves little time for anything else other than eating and sleeping.
Eating better? Easier said than done. When I was single, back in residency, that was easy. I only had one person to shop for and feed, but in a family you need to find something that will keep everyone happy, and with three teenagers that ain’t easy. Everyone wants this, that, or the other, and none of it seems to be particularly good for you.
In the modern era convenience generally beats pretty much everything else. Our lives are hurried. At some point it’s just easier to pick something up or order out than to go to the effort of preparing your own meals. Of course, it’s possible to get something healthy for takeout, but the unhealthy menu items sound so much better, and by that time of day I’m tired, hungry, and stressed, and the will power I had in the morning is pretty much gone.
It’s kind of a medical paradox. Those of us taking care of others often don’t do the same for ourselves. Part of this, as noted in a recent Medscape article, is that we live on schedules that are unrelated to the typical 9-to-5 jobs that most other professionals have, not to mention a very different set of stressors.
At least I haven’t started smoking.
As the article points out, I’m not alone. In fact, it’s reassuring to know other physicians are dealing with the same situation. We often assume we’re alone in our struggles, when the actual truth is the opposite.
All of our medical training doesn’t mean we’re not human. It would be nice if the job made us better able to practice what we preach, but human nature is older than medicine, and we’re susceptible to the same faults and temptations as those of our patients.
And always will be.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Why doctors are losing trust in patients; what should be done?
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University.
I want to talk about a paper that my colleagues in my division just published in Health Affairs.
As they pointed out, there’s a large amount of literature about what makes patients trust their doctor. There are many studies that show that, although patients sometimes have become more critical of the medical profession, in general they still try to trust their individual physician. Nurses remain in fairly high esteem among those who are getting hospital care.
What isn’t studied, as this paper properly points out, is, what can the doctor and the nurse do to trust the patient? How can that be assessed? Isn’t that just as important as saying that patients have to trust their doctors to do and comply with what they’re told?
What if doctors are afraid of violence? What if doctors are fearful that they can’t trust patients to listen, pay attention, or do what they’re being told? What if they think that patients are coming in with all kinds of disinformation, false information, or things they pick up on the Internet, so that even though you try your best to get across accurate and complete information about what to do about infectious diseases, taking care of a kid with strep throat, or whatever it might be, you’re thinking, Can I trust this patient to do what it is that I want them to do?
One particular problem that’s causing distrust is that more and more patients are showing stress and dependence on drugs and alcohol. That doesn’t make them less trustworthy per se, but it means they can’t regulate their own behavior as well.
That obviously has to be something that the physician or the nurse is thinking about. Is this person going to be able to contain anger? Is this person going to be able to handle bad news? Is this person going to deal with me when I tell them that some of the things they believe to be true about what’s good for their health care are false?
I think we have to really start to push administrators and people in positions of power to teach doctors and nurses how to defuse situations and how to make people more comfortable when they come in and the doctor suspects that they might be under the influence, impaired, or angry because of things they’ve seen on social media, whatever those might be – including concerns about racism, bigotry, and bias, which some patients are bringing into the clinic and the hospital setting.
We need more training. We’ve got to address this as a serious issue. What can we do to defuse situations where the doctor or the nurse rightly thinks that they can’t control or they can’t trust what the patient is thinking or how the patient might behave?
It’s also the case that I think we need more backup and quick access to security so that people feel safe and comfortable in providing care. We have to make sure that if you need someone to restrain a patient or to get somebody out of a situation, that they can get there quickly and respond rapidly, and that they know what to do to deescalate a situation.
It’s sad to say, but security in today’s health care world has to be something that we really test and check – not because we’re worried, as many places are, about a shooter entering the premises, which is its own bit of concern – but I’m just talking about when the doctor or the nurse says that this patient might be acting up, could get violent, or is someone I can’t trust.
My coauthors are basically saying that it’s not a one-way street. Yes, we have to figure out ways to make sure that our patients can trust what we say. Trust is absolutely the lubricant that makes health care flow. If patients don’t trust their doctors, they’re not going to do what they say. They’re not going to get their prescriptions filled. They’re not going to be compliant. They’re not going to try to lose weight or control their diabetes.
It also goes the other way. The doctor or the nurse has to trust the patient. They have to believe that they’re safe. They have to believe that the patient is capable of controlling themselves. They have to believe that the patient is capable of listening and hearing what they’re saying, and that they’re competent to follow up on instructions, including to come back if that’s what’s required.
Everybody has to feel secure in the environment in which they’re working. Security, sadly, has to be a priority if we’re going to have a health care workforce that really feels safe and comfortable dealing with a patient population that is increasingly aggressive and perhaps not as trustworthy.
That’s not news I like to read when my colleagues write it up, but it’s important and we have to take it seriously.
Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University.
I want to talk about a paper that my colleagues in my division just published in Health Affairs.
As they pointed out, there’s a large amount of literature about what makes patients trust their doctor. There are many studies that show that, although patients sometimes have become more critical of the medical profession, in general they still try to trust their individual physician. Nurses remain in fairly high esteem among those who are getting hospital care.
What isn’t studied, as this paper properly points out, is, what can the doctor and the nurse do to trust the patient? How can that be assessed? Isn’t that just as important as saying that patients have to trust their doctors to do and comply with what they’re told?
What if doctors are afraid of violence? What if doctors are fearful that they can’t trust patients to listen, pay attention, or do what they’re being told? What if they think that patients are coming in with all kinds of disinformation, false information, or things they pick up on the Internet, so that even though you try your best to get across accurate and complete information about what to do about infectious diseases, taking care of a kid with strep throat, or whatever it might be, you’re thinking, Can I trust this patient to do what it is that I want them to do?
One particular problem that’s causing distrust is that more and more patients are showing stress and dependence on drugs and alcohol. That doesn’t make them less trustworthy per se, but it means they can’t regulate their own behavior as well.
That obviously has to be something that the physician or the nurse is thinking about. Is this person going to be able to contain anger? Is this person going to be able to handle bad news? Is this person going to deal with me when I tell them that some of the things they believe to be true about what’s good for their health care are false?
I think we have to really start to push administrators and people in positions of power to teach doctors and nurses how to defuse situations and how to make people more comfortable when they come in and the doctor suspects that they might be under the influence, impaired, or angry because of things they’ve seen on social media, whatever those might be – including concerns about racism, bigotry, and bias, which some patients are bringing into the clinic and the hospital setting.
We need more training. We’ve got to address this as a serious issue. What can we do to defuse situations where the doctor or the nurse rightly thinks that they can’t control or they can’t trust what the patient is thinking or how the patient might behave?
It’s also the case that I think we need more backup and quick access to security so that people feel safe and comfortable in providing care. We have to make sure that if you need someone to restrain a patient or to get somebody out of a situation, that they can get there quickly and respond rapidly, and that they know what to do to deescalate a situation.
It’s sad to say, but security in today’s health care world has to be something that we really test and check – not because we’re worried, as many places are, about a shooter entering the premises, which is its own bit of concern – but I’m just talking about when the doctor or the nurse says that this patient might be acting up, could get violent, or is someone I can’t trust.
My coauthors are basically saying that it’s not a one-way street. Yes, we have to figure out ways to make sure that our patients can trust what we say. Trust is absolutely the lubricant that makes health care flow. If patients don’t trust their doctors, they’re not going to do what they say. They’re not going to get their prescriptions filled. They’re not going to be compliant. They’re not going to try to lose weight or control their diabetes.
It also goes the other way. The doctor or the nurse has to trust the patient. They have to believe that they’re safe. They have to believe that the patient is capable of controlling themselves. They have to believe that the patient is capable of listening and hearing what they’re saying, and that they’re competent to follow up on instructions, including to come back if that’s what’s required.
Everybody has to feel secure in the environment in which they’re working. Security, sadly, has to be a priority if we’re going to have a health care workforce that really feels safe and comfortable dealing with a patient population that is increasingly aggressive and perhaps not as trustworthy.
That’s not news I like to read when my colleagues write it up, but it’s important and we have to take it seriously.
Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University.
I want to talk about a paper that my colleagues in my division just published in Health Affairs.
As they pointed out, there’s a large amount of literature about what makes patients trust their doctor. There are many studies that show that, although patients sometimes have become more critical of the medical profession, in general they still try to trust their individual physician. Nurses remain in fairly high esteem among those who are getting hospital care.
What isn’t studied, as this paper properly points out, is, what can the doctor and the nurse do to trust the patient? How can that be assessed? Isn’t that just as important as saying that patients have to trust their doctors to do and comply with what they’re told?
What if doctors are afraid of violence? What if doctors are fearful that they can’t trust patients to listen, pay attention, or do what they’re being told? What if they think that patients are coming in with all kinds of disinformation, false information, or things they pick up on the Internet, so that even though you try your best to get across accurate and complete information about what to do about infectious diseases, taking care of a kid with strep throat, or whatever it might be, you’re thinking, Can I trust this patient to do what it is that I want them to do?
One particular problem that’s causing distrust is that more and more patients are showing stress and dependence on drugs and alcohol. That doesn’t make them less trustworthy per se, but it means they can’t regulate their own behavior as well.
That obviously has to be something that the physician or the nurse is thinking about. Is this person going to be able to contain anger? Is this person going to be able to handle bad news? Is this person going to deal with me when I tell them that some of the things they believe to be true about what’s good for their health care are false?
I think we have to really start to push administrators and people in positions of power to teach doctors and nurses how to defuse situations and how to make people more comfortable when they come in and the doctor suspects that they might be under the influence, impaired, or angry because of things they’ve seen on social media, whatever those might be – including concerns about racism, bigotry, and bias, which some patients are bringing into the clinic and the hospital setting.
We need more training. We’ve got to address this as a serious issue. What can we do to defuse situations where the doctor or the nurse rightly thinks that they can’t control or they can’t trust what the patient is thinking or how the patient might behave?
It’s also the case that I think we need more backup and quick access to security so that people feel safe and comfortable in providing care. We have to make sure that if you need someone to restrain a patient or to get somebody out of a situation, that they can get there quickly and respond rapidly, and that they know what to do to deescalate a situation.
It’s sad to say, but security in today’s health care world has to be something that we really test and check – not because we’re worried, as many places are, about a shooter entering the premises, which is its own bit of concern – but I’m just talking about when the doctor or the nurse says that this patient might be acting up, could get violent, or is someone I can’t trust.
My coauthors are basically saying that it’s not a one-way street. Yes, we have to figure out ways to make sure that our patients can trust what we say. Trust is absolutely the lubricant that makes health care flow. If patients don’t trust their doctors, they’re not going to do what they say. They’re not going to get their prescriptions filled. They’re not going to be compliant. They’re not going to try to lose weight or control their diabetes.
It also goes the other way. The doctor or the nurse has to trust the patient. They have to believe that they’re safe. They have to believe that the patient is capable of controlling themselves. They have to believe that the patient is capable of listening and hearing what they’re saying, and that they’re competent to follow up on instructions, including to come back if that’s what’s required.
Everybody has to feel secure in the environment in which they’re working. Security, sadly, has to be a priority if we’re going to have a health care workforce that really feels safe and comfortable dealing with a patient population that is increasingly aggressive and perhaps not as trustworthy.
That’s not news I like to read when my colleagues write it up, but it’s important and we have to take it seriously.
Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A single pediatric CT scan raises brain cancer risk
Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.
“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.
“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.
“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.
“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.
“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”
“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”
Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”
She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
Dose/response relationship
The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.
The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.
During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.
The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.
“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.
These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.
“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
Keeping dose to a minimum
The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.
“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.
“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”
The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.
“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.
“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.
“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.
“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.
“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”
“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”
Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”
She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
Dose/response relationship
The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.
The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.
During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.
The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.
“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.
These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.
“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
Keeping dose to a minimum
The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.
“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.
“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”
The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.
“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.
“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.
“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.
“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.
“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”
“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”
Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”
She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
Dose/response relationship
The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.
The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.
During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.
The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.
“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.
These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.
“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
Keeping dose to a minimum
The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.
“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.
“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”
The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
Statins tied to lower ICH risk regardless of bleed location
A new study has provided further reassurance on questions about the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) with statins.
The Danish case-control study, which compared statin use in 2,164 case patients with ICH and in 86,255 matched control persons, found that current statin use was associated with a lower risk of having a first ICH and that the risk was further reduced with longer duration of statin use.
The study also showed that statin use was linked to a lower risk of ICH in the more superficial lobar areas of the brain and in the deeper, nonlobar locations. There was no difference in the magnitude of risk reduction between the two locations.
“Although this study is observational, I feel these data are strong, and the results are reassuring. It certainly does not suggest any increased risk of ICH with statins,” senior author David Gaist, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, said in an interview.
“On the contrary, it indicates a lower risk, which seems to be independent of the location of the bleed.”
The study was published online in Neurology.
The authors note that statins effectively reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events and ischemic stroke in high-risk populations, but early randomized trials raised concerns of an increased risk of ICH among statin users who have a history of stroke.
Subsequent observational studies, including four meta-analyses, included patients with and those without prior stroke. The results were inconsistent, although most found no increase in bleeding. More recent studies have found a lower risk of ICH among statin users; the risk was inversely associated with the duration and intensity of statin treatment.
However, the researchers point out that few studies have assessed the association between statin use and the location of ICH. Hemorrhages that occur in the lobar region of the brain and those that occur in the nonlobar areas can have different pathophysiologies. Arteriolosclerosis, which is strongly associated with hypertension, is a common histologic finding in patients with ICH, regardless of hemorrhage location, while cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is associated with lobar but not nonlobar ICH.
The current study was conducted to look more closely at the relationship between statin use and hematoma location as a reflection of differences in the underlying pathophysiologies of lobar versus nonlobar ICH.
The researchers used Danish registries to identify all first-ever cases of spontaneous ICH that occurred between 2009 and 2018 in persons older than 55 years in the Southern Denmark region. Patients with traumatic ICH or ICH related to vascular malformations and tumors were excluded.
These cases were verified through medical records. ICH diagnoses were classified as having a lobar or nonlobar location, and patients were matched for age, sex, and calendar year to general population control persons. The nationwide prescription registry was also analyzed to ascertain use of statins and other medications.
The study included 989 patients with lobar ICH who were matched to 39,500 control persons and 1,175 patients with nonlobar ICH who were matched to 46,755 control persons.
Results showed that current statin use was associated with a 16%-17% relative reduction in ICH risk. There was no difference with respect to ICH location.
For lobar ICH, statin use showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98); for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
Longer duration of statin use was associated with a greater reduction in risk of ICH; use for more than 5 years was associated with a relative reduction of ICH of 33%-38%, again with no difference with regard to ICH location.
For lobar ICH, statin use for more than 5 years showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87); and for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.48-0.80).
“We suspected that statins may have more of an effect in reducing nonlobar ICH, as this type is considered to be more associated with arteriosclerosis, compared with lobar ICH,” Dr. Gaist explained. “But we didn’t find that. We found that taking statins was associated with a similar reduction in risk of both lobar and nonlobar ICH.”
Although amyloid angiopathy can contribute to lobar ICH, arteriosclerosis is still involved in the majority of cases, he noted. He cited a recent population-based U.K. study that showed that while histologically verified CAA was present in 58% of patients with a lobar ICH, most also had evidence of arteriosclerosis, with only 13% having isolated CAA pathology.
“If statins exert their effect on reducing ICH by reducing arteriosclerosis, which is likely, then this observation of arteriosclerosis pathology being prevalent in both lobar and nonlobar ICH locations would explain our results,” Dr. Gaist commented.
“Strengths of our study include the large numbers involved and the fact that the patients are unselected. We tried to find everyone who had had a first ICH in a well-defined region of Denmark, so issues of selection are less of a concern than in some other studies,” he noted.
He also pointed out that all the ICH diagnoses were verified from medical records and that in a substudy, brain scans were evaluated, with investigators masked to clinical data to evaluate the location and characteristics of the hematoma. In addition, data on statin use were collected prospectively from a nationwide prescription registry.
Interaction with antihypertensives, anticoagulants?
Other results from the study suggest a possible interaction between statin use and antihypertensive and anticoagulant drugs.
Data showed that the lower ICH risk was restricted to patients who received statins and antihypertensive drugs concurrently. Conversely, only patients who were not concurrently taking anticoagulants had a lower risk of ICH in association with statin use.
Dr. Gaist suggested that the lack of a reduction in ICH with statins among patients taking anticoagulants could be because the increased risk of ICH with anticoagulants was stronger than the reduced risk with statins.
Regarding the fact that the reduced risk of ICH with statins was only observed among individuals who were also taking antihypertensive medication, Dr. Gaist noted that because hypertension is such an important risk factor for ICH, “it may be that to get the true benefit of statins, patients have to have their hypertension controlled.”
However, an alternative explanation could that the finding is a result of “healthy adherer” bias, in which people who take antihypertensive medication and follow a healthy lifestyle as advised would be more likely to take statins.
“The observational nature of our study does not allow us to determine the extent to which associations are causal,” the authors say.
Dr. Gaist also noted that an important caveat in this study is that they focused on individuals who had had a first ICH.
“This data does not inform us about those who have already had an ICH and are taking statins. But we are planning to look at this in our next study,” he said.
The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Gaist has received speaker honorarium from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer unrelated to this work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study has provided further reassurance on questions about the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) with statins.
The Danish case-control study, which compared statin use in 2,164 case patients with ICH and in 86,255 matched control persons, found that current statin use was associated with a lower risk of having a first ICH and that the risk was further reduced with longer duration of statin use.
The study also showed that statin use was linked to a lower risk of ICH in the more superficial lobar areas of the brain and in the deeper, nonlobar locations. There was no difference in the magnitude of risk reduction between the two locations.
“Although this study is observational, I feel these data are strong, and the results are reassuring. It certainly does not suggest any increased risk of ICH with statins,” senior author David Gaist, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, said in an interview.
“On the contrary, it indicates a lower risk, which seems to be independent of the location of the bleed.”
The study was published online in Neurology.
The authors note that statins effectively reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events and ischemic stroke in high-risk populations, but early randomized trials raised concerns of an increased risk of ICH among statin users who have a history of stroke.
Subsequent observational studies, including four meta-analyses, included patients with and those without prior stroke. The results were inconsistent, although most found no increase in bleeding. More recent studies have found a lower risk of ICH among statin users; the risk was inversely associated with the duration and intensity of statin treatment.
However, the researchers point out that few studies have assessed the association between statin use and the location of ICH. Hemorrhages that occur in the lobar region of the brain and those that occur in the nonlobar areas can have different pathophysiologies. Arteriolosclerosis, which is strongly associated with hypertension, is a common histologic finding in patients with ICH, regardless of hemorrhage location, while cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is associated with lobar but not nonlobar ICH.
The current study was conducted to look more closely at the relationship between statin use and hematoma location as a reflection of differences in the underlying pathophysiologies of lobar versus nonlobar ICH.
The researchers used Danish registries to identify all first-ever cases of spontaneous ICH that occurred between 2009 and 2018 in persons older than 55 years in the Southern Denmark region. Patients with traumatic ICH or ICH related to vascular malformations and tumors were excluded.
These cases were verified through medical records. ICH diagnoses were classified as having a lobar or nonlobar location, and patients were matched for age, sex, and calendar year to general population control persons. The nationwide prescription registry was also analyzed to ascertain use of statins and other medications.
The study included 989 patients with lobar ICH who were matched to 39,500 control persons and 1,175 patients with nonlobar ICH who were matched to 46,755 control persons.
Results showed that current statin use was associated with a 16%-17% relative reduction in ICH risk. There was no difference with respect to ICH location.
For lobar ICH, statin use showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98); for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
Longer duration of statin use was associated with a greater reduction in risk of ICH; use for more than 5 years was associated with a relative reduction of ICH of 33%-38%, again with no difference with regard to ICH location.
For lobar ICH, statin use for more than 5 years showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87); and for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.48-0.80).
“We suspected that statins may have more of an effect in reducing nonlobar ICH, as this type is considered to be more associated with arteriosclerosis, compared with lobar ICH,” Dr. Gaist explained. “But we didn’t find that. We found that taking statins was associated with a similar reduction in risk of both lobar and nonlobar ICH.”
Although amyloid angiopathy can contribute to lobar ICH, arteriosclerosis is still involved in the majority of cases, he noted. He cited a recent population-based U.K. study that showed that while histologically verified CAA was present in 58% of patients with a lobar ICH, most also had evidence of arteriosclerosis, with only 13% having isolated CAA pathology.
“If statins exert their effect on reducing ICH by reducing arteriosclerosis, which is likely, then this observation of arteriosclerosis pathology being prevalent in both lobar and nonlobar ICH locations would explain our results,” Dr. Gaist commented.
“Strengths of our study include the large numbers involved and the fact that the patients are unselected. We tried to find everyone who had had a first ICH in a well-defined region of Denmark, so issues of selection are less of a concern than in some other studies,” he noted.
He also pointed out that all the ICH diagnoses were verified from medical records and that in a substudy, brain scans were evaluated, with investigators masked to clinical data to evaluate the location and characteristics of the hematoma. In addition, data on statin use were collected prospectively from a nationwide prescription registry.
Interaction with antihypertensives, anticoagulants?
Other results from the study suggest a possible interaction between statin use and antihypertensive and anticoagulant drugs.
Data showed that the lower ICH risk was restricted to patients who received statins and antihypertensive drugs concurrently. Conversely, only patients who were not concurrently taking anticoagulants had a lower risk of ICH in association with statin use.
Dr. Gaist suggested that the lack of a reduction in ICH with statins among patients taking anticoagulants could be because the increased risk of ICH with anticoagulants was stronger than the reduced risk with statins.
Regarding the fact that the reduced risk of ICH with statins was only observed among individuals who were also taking antihypertensive medication, Dr. Gaist noted that because hypertension is such an important risk factor for ICH, “it may be that to get the true benefit of statins, patients have to have their hypertension controlled.”
However, an alternative explanation could that the finding is a result of “healthy adherer” bias, in which people who take antihypertensive medication and follow a healthy lifestyle as advised would be more likely to take statins.
“The observational nature of our study does not allow us to determine the extent to which associations are causal,” the authors say.
Dr. Gaist also noted that an important caveat in this study is that they focused on individuals who had had a first ICH.
“This data does not inform us about those who have already had an ICH and are taking statins. But we are planning to look at this in our next study,” he said.
The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Gaist has received speaker honorarium from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer unrelated to this work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study has provided further reassurance on questions about the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) with statins.
The Danish case-control study, which compared statin use in 2,164 case patients with ICH and in 86,255 matched control persons, found that current statin use was associated with a lower risk of having a first ICH and that the risk was further reduced with longer duration of statin use.
The study also showed that statin use was linked to a lower risk of ICH in the more superficial lobar areas of the brain and in the deeper, nonlobar locations. There was no difference in the magnitude of risk reduction between the two locations.
“Although this study is observational, I feel these data are strong, and the results are reassuring. It certainly does not suggest any increased risk of ICH with statins,” senior author David Gaist, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, said in an interview.
“On the contrary, it indicates a lower risk, which seems to be independent of the location of the bleed.”
The study was published online in Neurology.
The authors note that statins effectively reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events and ischemic stroke in high-risk populations, but early randomized trials raised concerns of an increased risk of ICH among statin users who have a history of stroke.
Subsequent observational studies, including four meta-analyses, included patients with and those without prior stroke. The results were inconsistent, although most found no increase in bleeding. More recent studies have found a lower risk of ICH among statin users; the risk was inversely associated with the duration and intensity of statin treatment.
However, the researchers point out that few studies have assessed the association between statin use and the location of ICH. Hemorrhages that occur in the lobar region of the brain and those that occur in the nonlobar areas can have different pathophysiologies. Arteriolosclerosis, which is strongly associated with hypertension, is a common histologic finding in patients with ICH, regardless of hemorrhage location, while cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is associated with lobar but not nonlobar ICH.
The current study was conducted to look more closely at the relationship between statin use and hematoma location as a reflection of differences in the underlying pathophysiologies of lobar versus nonlobar ICH.
The researchers used Danish registries to identify all first-ever cases of spontaneous ICH that occurred between 2009 and 2018 in persons older than 55 years in the Southern Denmark region. Patients with traumatic ICH or ICH related to vascular malformations and tumors were excluded.
These cases were verified through medical records. ICH diagnoses were classified as having a lobar or nonlobar location, and patients were matched for age, sex, and calendar year to general population control persons. The nationwide prescription registry was also analyzed to ascertain use of statins and other medications.
The study included 989 patients with lobar ICH who were matched to 39,500 control persons and 1,175 patients with nonlobar ICH who were matched to 46,755 control persons.
Results showed that current statin use was associated with a 16%-17% relative reduction in ICH risk. There was no difference with respect to ICH location.
For lobar ICH, statin use showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98); for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
Longer duration of statin use was associated with a greater reduction in risk of ICH; use for more than 5 years was associated with a relative reduction of ICH of 33%-38%, again with no difference with regard to ICH location.
For lobar ICH, statin use for more than 5 years showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87); and for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.48-0.80).
“We suspected that statins may have more of an effect in reducing nonlobar ICH, as this type is considered to be more associated with arteriosclerosis, compared with lobar ICH,” Dr. Gaist explained. “But we didn’t find that. We found that taking statins was associated with a similar reduction in risk of both lobar and nonlobar ICH.”
Although amyloid angiopathy can contribute to lobar ICH, arteriosclerosis is still involved in the majority of cases, he noted. He cited a recent population-based U.K. study that showed that while histologically verified CAA was present in 58% of patients with a lobar ICH, most also had evidence of arteriosclerosis, with only 13% having isolated CAA pathology.
“If statins exert their effect on reducing ICH by reducing arteriosclerosis, which is likely, then this observation of arteriosclerosis pathology being prevalent in both lobar and nonlobar ICH locations would explain our results,” Dr. Gaist commented.
“Strengths of our study include the large numbers involved and the fact that the patients are unselected. We tried to find everyone who had had a first ICH in a well-defined region of Denmark, so issues of selection are less of a concern than in some other studies,” he noted.
He also pointed out that all the ICH diagnoses were verified from medical records and that in a substudy, brain scans were evaluated, with investigators masked to clinical data to evaluate the location and characteristics of the hematoma. In addition, data on statin use were collected prospectively from a nationwide prescription registry.
Interaction with antihypertensives, anticoagulants?
Other results from the study suggest a possible interaction between statin use and antihypertensive and anticoagulant drugs.
Data showed that the lower ICH risk was restricted to patients who received statins and antihypertensive drugs concurrently. Conversely, only patients who were not concurrently taking anticoagulants had a lower risk of ICH in association with statin use.
Dr. Gaist suggested that the lack of a reduction in ICH with statins among patients taking anticoagulants could be because the increased risk of ICH with anticoagulants was stronger than the reduced risk with statins.
Regarding the fact that the reduced risk of ICH with statins was only observed among individuals who were also taking antihypertensive medication, Dr. Gaist noted that because hypertension is such an important risk factor for ICH, “it may be that to get the true benefit of statins, patients have to have their hypertension controlled.”
However, an alternative explanation could that the finding is a result of “healthy adherer” bias, in which people who take antihypertensive medication and follow a healthy lifestyle as advised would be more likely to take statins.
“The observational nature of our study does not allow us to determine the extent to which associations are causal,” the authors say.
Dr. Gaist also noted that an important caveat in this study is that they focused on individuals who had had a first ICH.
“This data does not inform us about those who have already had an ICH and are taking statins. But we are planning to look at this in our next study,” he said.
The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Gaist has received speaker honorarium from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer unrelated to this work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How your voice could reveal hidden disease
: First during puberty, as the vocal cords thicken and the voice box migrates down the throat. Then a second time as aging causes structural changes that may weaken the voice.
But for some of us, there’s another voice shift, when a disease begins or when our mental health declines.
This is why more doctors are looking into voice as a biomarker – something that tells you that a disease is present.
Vital signs like blood pressure or heart rate “can give a general idea of how sick we are. But they’re not specific to certain diseases,” says Yael Bensoussan, MD, director of the University of South Florida, Tampa’s Health Voice Center and the coprincipal investigator for the National Institutes of Health’s Voice as a Biomarker of Health project.
“We’re learning that there are patterns” in voice changes that can indicate a range of conditions, including diseases of the nervous system and mental illnesses, she says.
Speaking is complicated, involving everything from the lungs and voice box to the mouth and brain. “A breakdown in any of those parts can affect the voice,” says Maria Powell, PhD, an assistant professor of otolaryngology (the study of diseases of the ear and throat) at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is working on the NIH project.
You or those around you may not notice the changes. But researchers say voice analysis as a standard part of patient care – akin to blood pressure checks or cholesterol tests – could help identify those who need medical attention earlier.
Often, all it takes is a smartphone – “something that’s cheap, off-the-shelf, and that everyone can use,” says Ariana Anderson, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles, Laboratory of Computational Neuropsychology.
“You can provide voice data in your pajamas, on your couch,” says Frank Rudzicz, PhD, a computer scientist for the NIH project. “It doesn’t require very complicated or expensive equipment, and it doesn’t require a lot of expertise to obtain.” Plus, multiple samples can be collected over time, giving a more accurate picture of health than a single snapshot from, say, a cognitive test.
Over the next 4 years, the Voice as a Biomarker team will receive nearly $18 million to gather a massive amount of voice data. The goal is 20,000-30,000 samples, along with health data about each person being studied. The result will be a sprawling database scientists can use to develop algorithms linking health conditions to the way we speak.
For the first 2 years, new data will be collected exclusively via universities and high-volume clinics to control quality and accuracy. Eventually, people will be invited to submit their own voice recordings, creating a crowdsourced dataset. “Google, Alexa, Amazon – they have access to tons of voice data,” says Dr. Bensoussan. “But it’s not usable in a clinical way, because they don’t have the health information.”
Dr. Bensoussan and her colleagues hope to fill that void with advance voice screening apps, which could prove especially valuable in remote communities that lack access to specialists or as a tool for telemedicine. Down the line, wearable devices with voice analysis could alert people with chronic conditions when they need to see a doctor.
“The watch says, ‘I’ve analyzed your breathing and coughing, and today, you’re really not doing well. You should go to the hospital,’ ” says Dr. Bensoussan, envisioning a wearable for patients with COPD. “It could tell people early that things are declining.”
Artificial intelligence may be better than a brain at pinpointing the right disease. For example, slurred speech could indicate Parkinson’s, a stroke, or ALS, among other things.
“We can hold approximately seven pieces of information in our head at one time,” says Dr. Rudzicz. “It’s really hard for us to get a holistic picture using dozens or hundreds of variables at once.” But a computer can consider a whole range of vocal markers at the same time, piecing them together for a more accurate assessment.
“The goal is not to outperform a ... clinician,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Yet the potential is unmistakably there: In a recent study of patients with cancer of the larynx, an automated voice analysis tool more accurately flagged the disease than laryngologists did.
“Algorithms have a larger training base,” says Dr. Anderson, who developed an app called ChatterBaby that analyzes infant cries. “We have a million samples at our disposal to train our algorithms. I don’t know if I’ve heard a million different babies crying in my life.”
So which health conditions show the most promise for voice analysis? The Voice as a Biomarker project will focus on five categories.
Voice disorders (cancers of the larynx, vocal fold paralysis, benign lesions on the larynx)
Obviously, vocal changes are a hallmark of these conditions, which cause things like breathiness or “roughness,” a type of vocal irregularity. Hoarseness that lasts at least 2 weeks is often one of the earliest signs of laryngeal cancer. Yet it can take months – one study found 16 weeks was the average – for patients to see a doctor after noticing the changes. Even then, laryngologists still misdiagnosed some cases of cancer when relying on vocal cues alone.
Now imagine a different scenario: The patient speaks into a smartphone app. An algorithm compares the vocal sample with the voices of laryngeal cancer patients. The app spits out the estimated odds of laryngeal cancer, helping providers decide whether to offer the patient specialist care.
Or consider spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological voice disorder that triggers spasms in the muscles of the voice box, causing a strained or breathy voice. Doctors who lack experience with vocal disorders may miss the condition. This is why diagnosis takes an average of nearly 4.5 years, according to a study in the Journal of Voice, and may include everything from allergy testing to psychiatric evaluation, says Dr. Powell. Artificial intelligence technology trained to recognize the disorder could help eliminate such unnecessary testing.
Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, ALS)
For Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, “one of the first changes that’s notable is voice,” usually appearing before a formal diagnosis, says Anais Rameau, MD, an assistant professor of laryngology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and another member of the NIH project. Parkinson’s may soften the voice or make it sound monotone, while Alzheimer’s disease may change the content of speech, leading to an uptick in “umms” and a preference for pronouns over nouns.
With Parkinson’s, vocal changes can occur decades before movement is affected. If doctors could detect the disease at this stage, before tremor emerged, they might be able to flag patients for early intervention, says Max Little, PhD, project director for the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative. “That is the ‘holy grail’ for finding an eventual cure.”
Again, the smartphone shows potential. In a 2022 Australian study, an AI-powered app was able to identify people with Parkinson’s based on brief voice recordings, although the sample size was small. On a larger scale, the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative collected some 17,000 samples from people across the world. “The aim was to remotely detect those with the condition using a telephone call,” says Dr. Little. It did so with about 65% accuracy. “While this is not accurate enough for clinical use, it shows the potential of the idea,” he says.
Dr. Rudzicz worked on the team behind Winterlight, an iPad app that analyzes 550 features of speech to detect dementia and Alzheimer’s (as well as mental illness). “We deployed it in long-term care facilities,” he says, identifying patients who need further review of their mental skills. Stroke is another area of interest, because slurred speech is a highly subjective measure, says Dr. Anderson. AI technology could provide a more objective evaluation.
Mood and psychiatric disorders (depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders)
No established biomarkers exist for diagnosing depression. Yet if you’re feeling down, there’s a good chance your friends can tell – even over the phone.
“We carry a lot of our mood in our voice,” says Dr. Powell. Bipolar disorder can also alter voice, making it louder and faster during manic periods, then slower and quieter during depressive bouts. The catatonic stage of schizophrenia often comes with “a very monotone, robotic voice,” says Dr. Anderson. “These are all something an algorithm can measure.”
Apps are already being used – often in research settings – to monitor voices during phone calls, analyzing rate, rhythm, volume, and pitch, to predict mood changes. For example, the PRIORI project at the University of Michigan is working on a smartphone app to identify mood changes in people with bipolar disorder, especially shifts that could increase suicide risk.
The content of speech may also offer clues. In a University of California, Los Angeles, study published in the journal PLoS One, people with mental illnesses answered computer-programmed questions (like “How have you been over the past few days?”) over the phone. An app analyzed their word choices, paying attention to how they changed over time. The researchers found that AI analysis of mood aligned well with doctors’ assessments and that some people in the study actually felt more comfortable talking to a computer.
Respiratory disorders (pneumonia, COPD)
Beyond talking, respiratory sounds like gasping or coughing may point to specific conditions. “Emphysema cough is different, COPD cough is different,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Researchers are trying to find out if COVID-19 has a distinct cough.
Breathing sounds can also serve as signposts. “There are different sounds when we can’t breathe,” says Dr. Bensoussan. One is called stridor, a high-pitched wheezing often resulting from a blocked airway. “I see tons of people [with stridor] misdiagnosed for years – they’ve been told they have asthma, but they don’t,” says Dr. Bensoussan. AI analysis of these sounds could help doctors more quickly identify respiratory disorders.
Pediatric voice and speech disorders (speech and language delays, autism)
Babies who later have autism cry differently as early as 6 months of age, which means an app like ChatterBaby could help flag children for early intervention, says Dr. Anderson. Autism is linked to several other diagnoses, such as epilepsy and sleep disorders. So analyzing an infant’s cry could prompt pediatricians to screen for a range of conditions.
ChatterBaby has been “incredibly accurate” in identifying when babies are in pain, says Dr. Anderson, because pain increases muscle tension, resulting in a louder, more energetic cry. The next goal: “We’re collecting voices from babies around the world,” she says, and then tracking those children for 7 years, looking to see if early vocal signs could predict developmental disorders. Vocal samples from young children could serve a similar purpose.
And that’s only the beginning
Eventually, AI technology may pick up disease-related voice changes that we can’t even hear. In a new Mayo Clinic study, certain vocal features detectable by AI – but not by the human ear – were linked to a three-fold increase in the likelihood of having plaque buildup in the arteries.
“Voice is a huge spectrum of vibrations,” explains study author Amir Lerman, MD. “We hear a very narrow range.”
The researchers aren’t sure why heart disease alters voice, but the autonomic nervous system may play a role, because it regulates the voice box as well as blood pressure and heart rate. Dr. Lerman says other conditions, like diseases of the nerves and gut, may similarly alter the voice. Beyond patient screening, this discovery could help doctors adjust medication doses remotely, in line with these inaudible vocal signals.
“Hopefully, in the next few years, this is going to come to practice,” says Dr. Lerman.
Still, in the face of that hope, privacy concerns remain. Voice is an identifier that’s protected by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which requires privacy of personal health information. That is a major reason why no large voice databases exist yet, says Dr. Bensoussan. (This makes collecting samples from children especially challenging.) Perhaps more concerning is the potential for diagnosing disease based on voice alone. “You could use that tool on anyone, including officials like the president,” says Dr. Rameau.
But the primary hurdle is the ethical sourcing of data to ensure a diversity of vocal samples. For the Voice as a Biomarker project, the researchers will establish voice quotas for different races and ethnicities, ensuring algorithms can accurately analyze a range of accents. Data from people with speech impediments will also be gathered.
Despite these challenges, researchers are optimistic. “Vocal analysis is going to be a great equalizer and improve health outcomes,” predicts Dr. Anderson. “I’m really happy that we are beginning to understand the strength of the voice.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
: First during puberty, as the vocal cords thicken and the voice box migrates down the throat. Then a second time as aging causes structural changes that may weaken the voice.
But for some of us, there’s another voice shift, when a disease begins or when our mental health declines.
This is why more doctors are looking into voice as a biomarker – something that tells you that a disease is present.
Vital signs like blood pressure or heart rate “can give a general idea of how sick we are. But they’re not specific to certain diseases,” says Yael Bensoussan, MD, director of the University of South Florida, Tampa’s Health Voice Center and the coprincipal investigator for the National Institutes of Health’s Voice as a Biomarker of Health project.
“We’re learning that there are patterns” in voice changes that can indicate a range of conditions, including diseases of the nervous system and mental illnesses, she says.
Speaking is complicated, involving everything from the lungs and voice box to the mouth and brain. “A breakdown in any of those parts can affect the voice,” says Maria Powell, PhD, an assistant professor of otolaryngology (the study of diseases of the ear and throat) at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is working on the NIH project.
You or those around you may not notice the changes. But researchers say voice analysis as a standard part of patient care – akin to blood pressure checks or cholesterol tests – could help identify those who need medical attention earlier.
Often, all it takes is a smartphone – “something that’s cheap, off-the-shelf, and that everyone can use,” says Ariana Anderson, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles, Laboratory of Computational Neuropsychology.
“You can provide voice data in your pajamas, on your couch,” says Frank Rudzicz, PhD, a computer scientist for the NIH project. “It doesn’t require very complicated or expensive equipment, and it doesn’t require a lot of expertise to obtain.” Plus, multiple samples can be collected over time, giving a more accurate picture of health than a single snapshot from, say, a cognitive test.
Over the next 4 years, the Voice as a Biomarker team will receive nearly $18 million to gather a massive amount of voice data. The goal is 20,000-30,000 samples, along with health data about each person being studied. The result will be a sprawling database scientists can use to develop algorithms linking health conditions to the way we speak.
For the first 2 years, new data will be collected exclusively via universities and high-volume clinics to control quality and accuracy. Eventually, people will be invited to submit their own voice recordings, creating a crowdsourced dataset. “Google, Alexa, Amazon – they have access to tons of voice data,” says Dr. Bensoussan. “But it’s not usable in a clinical way, because they don’t have the health information.”
Dr. Bensoussan and her colleagues hope to fill that void with advance voice screening apps, which could prove especially valuable in remote communities that lack access to specialists or as a tool for telemedicine. Down the line, wearable devices with voice analysis could alert people with chronic conditions when they need to see a doctor.
“The watch says, ‘I’ve analyzed your breathing and coughing, and today, you’re really not doing well. You should go to the hospital,’ ” says Dr. Bensoussan, envisioning a wearable for patients with COPD. “It could tell people early that things are declining.”
Artificial intelligence may be better than a brain at pinpointing the right disease. For example, slurred speech could indicate Parkinson’s, a stroke, or ALS, among other things.
“We can hold approximately seven pieces of information in our head at one time,” says Dr. Rudzicz. “It’s really hard for us to get a holistic picture using dozens or hundreds of variables at once.” But a computer can consider a whole range of vocal markers at the same time, piecing them together for a more accurate assessment.
“The goal is not to outperform a ... clinician,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Yet the potential is unmistakably there: In a recent study of patients with cancer of the larynx, an automated voice analysis tool more accurately flagged the disease than laryngologists did.
“Algorithms have a larger training base,” says Dr. Anderson, who developed an app called ChatterBaby that analyzes infant cries. “We have a million samples at our disposal to train our algorithms. I don’t know if I’ve heard a million different babies crying in my life.”
So which health conditions show the most promise for voice analysis? The Voice as a Biomarker project will focus on five categories.
Voice disorders (cancers of the larynx, vocal fold paralysis, benign lesions on the larynx)
Obviously, vocal changes are a hallmark of these conditions, which cause things like breathiness or “roughness,” a type of vocal irregularity. Hoarseness that lasts at least 2 weeks is often one of the earliest signs of laryngeal cancer. Yet it can take months – one study found 16 weeks was the average – for patients to see a doctor after noticing the changes. Even then, laryngologists still misdiagnosed some cases of cancer when relying on vocal cues alone.
Now imagine a different scenario: The patient speaks into a smartphone app. An algorithm compares the vocal sample with the voices of laryngeal cancer patients. The app spits out the estimated odds of laryngeal cancer, helping providers decide whether to offer the patient specialist care.
Or consider spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological voice disorder that triggers spasms in the muscles of the voice box, causing a strained or breathy voice. Doctors who lack experience with vocal disorders may miss the condition. This is why diagnosis takes an average of nearly 4.5 years, according to a study in the Journal of Voice, and may include everything from allergy testing to psychiatric evaluation, says Dr. Powell. Artificial intelligence technology trained to recognize the disorder could help eliminate such unnecessary testing.
Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, ALS)
For Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, “one of the first changes that’s notable is voice,” usually appearing before a formal diagnosis, says Anais Rameau, MD, an assistant professor of laryngology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and another member of the NIH project. Parkinson’s may soften the voice or make it sound monotone, while Alzheimer’s disease may change the content of speech, leading to an uptick in “umms” and a preference for pronouns over nouns.
With Parkinson’s, vocal changes can occur decades before movement is affected. If doctors could detect the disease at this stage, before tremor emerged, they might be able to flag patients for early intervention, says Max Little, PhD, project director for the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative. “That is the ‘holy grail’ for finding an eventual cure.”
Again, the smartphone shows potential. In a 2022 Australian study, an AI-powered app was able to identify people with Parkinson’s based on brief voice recordings, although the sample size was small. On a larger scale, the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative collected some 17,000 samples from people across the world. “The aim was to remotely detect those with the condition using a telephone call,” says Dr. Little. It did so with about 65% accuracy. “While this is not accurate enough for clinical use, it shows the potential of the idea,” he says.
Dr. Rudzicz worked on the team behind Winterlight, an iPad app that analyzes 550 features of speech to detect dementia and Alzheimer’s (as well as mental illness). “We deployed it in long-term care facilities,” he says, identifying patients who need further review of their mental skills. Stroke is another area of interest, because slurred speech is a highly subjective measure, says Dr. Anderson. AI technology could provide a more objective evaluation.
Mood and psychiatric disorders (depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders)
No established biomarkers exist for diagnosing depression. Yet if you’re feeling down, there’s a good chance your friends can tell – even over the phone.
“We carry a lot of our mood in our voice,” says Dr. Powell. Bipolar disorder can also alter voice, making it louder and faster during manic periods, then slower and quieter during depressive bouts. The catatonic stage of schizophrenia often comes with “a very monotone, robotic voice,” says Dr. Anderson. “These are all something an algorithm can measure.”
Apps are already being used – often in research settings – to monitor voices during phone calls, analyzing rate, rhythm, volume, and pitch, to predict mood changes. For example, the PRIORI project at the University of Michigan is working on a smartphone app to identify mood changes in people with bipolar disorder, especially shifts that could increase suicide risk.
The content of speech may also offer clues. In a University of California, Los Angeles, study published in the journal PLoS One, people with mental illnesses answered computer-programmed questions (like “How have you been over the past few days?”) over the phone. An app analyzed their word choices, paying attention to how they changed over time. The researchers found that AI analysis of mood aligned well with doctors’ assessments and that some people in the study actually felt more comfortable talking to a computer.
Respiratory disorders (pneumonia, COPD)
Beyond talking, respiratory sounds like gasping or coughing may point to specific conditions. “Emphysema cough is different, COPD cough is different,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Researchers are trying to find out if COVID-19 has a distinct cough.
Breathing sounds can also serve as signposts. “There are different sounds when we can’t breathe,” says Dr. Bensoussan. One is called stridor, a high-pitched wheezing often resulting from a blocked airway. “I see tons of people [with stridor] misdiagnosed for years – they’ve been told they have asthma, but they don’t,” says Dr. Bensoussan. AI analysis of these sounds could help doctors more quickly identify respiratory disorders.
Pediatric voice and speech disorders (speech and language delays, autism)
Babies who later have autism cry differently as early as 6 months of age, which means an app like ChatterBaby could help flag children for early intervention, says Dr. Anderson. Autism is linked to several other diagnoses, such as epilepsy and sleep disorders. So analyzing an infant’s cry could prompt pediatricians to screen for a range of conditions.
ChatterBaby has been “incredibly accurate” in identifying when babies are in pain, says Dr. Anderson, because pain increases muscle tension, resulting in a louder, more energetic cry. The next goal: “We’re collecting voices from babies around the world,” she says, and then tracking those children for 7 years, looking to see if early vocal signs could predict developmental disorders. Vocal samples from young children could serve a similar purpose.
And that’s only the beginning
Eventually, AI technology may pick up disease-related voice changes that we can’t even hear. In a new Mayo Clinic study, certain vocal features detectable by AI – but not by the human ear – were linked to a three-fold increase in the likelihood of having plaque buildup in the arteries.
“Voice is a huge spectrum of vibrations,” explains study author Amir Lerman, MD. “We hear a very narrow range.”
The researchers aren’t sure why heart disease alters voice, but the autonomic nervous system may play a role, because it regulates the voice box as well as blood pressure and heart rate. Dr. Lerman says other conditions, like diseases of the nerves and gut, may similarly alter the voice. Beyond patient screening, this discovery could help doctors adjust medication doses remotely, in line with these inaudible vocal signals.
“Hopefully, in the next few years, this is going to come to practice,” says Dr. Lerman.
Still, in the face of that hope, privacy concerns remain. Voice is an identifier that’s protected by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which requires privacy of personal health information. That is a major reason why no large voice databases exist yet, says Dr. Bensoussan. (This makes collecting samples from children especially challenging.) Perhaps more concerning is the potential for diagnosing disease based on voice alone. “You could use that tool on anyone, including officials like the president,” says Dr. Rameau.
But the primary hurdle is the ethical sourcing of data to ensure a diversity of vocal samples. For the Voice as a Biomarker project, the researchers will establish voice quotas for different races and ethnicities, ensuring algorithms can accurately analyze a range of accents. Data from people with speech impediments will also be gathered.
Despite these challenges, researchers are optimistic. “Vocal analysis is going to be a great equalizer and improve health outcomes,” predicts Dr. Anderson. “I’m really happy that we are beginning to understand the strength of the voice.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
: First during puberty, as the vocal cords thicken and the voice box migrates down the throat. Then a second time as aging causes structural changes that may weaken the voice.
But for some of us, there’s another voice shift, when a disease begins or when our mental health declines.
This is why more doctors are looking into voice as a biomarker – something that tells you that a disease is present.
Vital signs like blood pressure or heart rate “can give a general idea of how sick we are. But they’re not specific to certain diseases,” says Yael Bensoussan, MD, director of the University of South Florida, Tampa’s Health Voice Center and the coprincipal investigator for the National Institutes of Health’s Voice as a Biomarker of Health project.
“We’re learning that there are patterns” in voice changes that can indicate a range of conditions, including diseases of the nervous system and mental illnesses, she says.
Speaking is complicated, involving everything from the lungs and voice box to the mouth and brain. “A breakdown in any of those parts can affect the voice,” says Maria Powell, PhD, an assistant professor of otolaryngology (the study of diseases of the ear and throat) at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is working on the NIH project.
You or those around you may not notice the changes. But researchers say voice analysis as a standard part of patient care – akin to blood pressure checks or cholesterol tests – could help identify those who need medical attention earlier.
Often, all it takes is a smartphone – “something that’s cheap, off-the-shelf, and that everyone can use,” says Ariana Anderson, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles, Laboratory of Computational Neuropsychology.
“You can provide voice data in your pajamas, on your couch,” says Frank Rudzicz, PhD, a computer scientist for the NIH project. “It doesn’t require very complicated or expensive equipment, and it doesn’t require a lot of expertise to obtain.” Plus, multiple samples can be collected over time, giving a more accurate picture of health than a single snapshot from, say, a cognitive test.
Over the next 4 years, the Voice as a Biomarker team will receive nearly $18 million to gather a massive amount of voice data. The goal is 20,000-30,000 samples, along with health data about each person being studied. The result will be a sprawling database scientists can use to develop algorithms linking health conditions to the way we speak.
For the first 2 years, new data will be collected exclusively via universities and high-volume clinics to control quality and accuracy. Eventually, people will be invited to submit their own voice recordings, creating a crowdsourced dataset. “Google, Alexa, Amazon – they have access to tons of voice data,” says Dr. Bensoussan. “But it’s not usable in a clinical way, because they don’t have the health information.”
Dr. Bensoussan and her colleagues hope to fill that void with advance voice screening apps, which could prove especially valuable in remote communities that lack access to specialists or as a tool for telemedicine. Down the line, wearable devices with voice analysis could alert people with chronic conditions when they need to see a doctor.
“The watch says, ‘I’ve analyzed your breathing and coughing, and today, you’re really not doing well. You should go to the hospital,’ ” says Dr. Bensoussan, envisioning a wearable for patients with COPD. “It could tell people early that things are declining.”
Artificial intelligence may be better than a brain at pinpointing the right disease. For example, slurred speech could indicate Parkinson’s, a stroke, or ALS, among other things.
“We can hold approximately seven pieces of information in our head at one time,” says Dr. Rudzicz. “It’s really hard for us to get a holistic picture using dozens or hundreds of variables at once.” But a computer can consider a whole range of vocal markers at the same time, piecing them together for a more accurate assessment.
“The goal is not to outperform a ... clinician,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Yet the potential is unmistakably there: In a recent study of patients with cancer of the larynx, an automated voice analysis tool more accurately flagged the disease than laryngologists did.
“Algorithms have a larger training base,” says Dr. Anderson, who developed an app called ChatterBaby that analyzes infant cries. “We have a million samples at our disposal to train our algorithms. I don’t know if I’ve heard a million different babies crying in my life.”
So which health conditions show the most promise for voice analysis? The Voice as a Biomarker project will focus on five categories.
Voice disorders (cancers of the larynx, vocal fold paralysis, benign lesions on the larynx)
Obviously, vocal changes are a hallmark of these conditions, which cause things like breathiness or “roughness,” a type of vocal irregularity. Hoarseness that lasts at least 2 weeks is often one of the earliest signs of laryngeal cancer. Yet it can take months – one study found 16 weeks was the average – for patients to see a doctor after noticing the changes. Even then, laryngologists still misdiagnosed some cases of cancer when relying on vocal cues alone.
Now imagine a different scenario: The patient speaks into a smartphone app. An algorithm compares the vocal sample with the voices of laryngeal cancer patients. The app spits out the estimated odds of laryngeal cancer, helping providers decide whether to offer the patient specialist care.
Or consider spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological voice disorder that triggers spasms in the muscles of the voice box, causing a strained or breathy voice. Doctors who lack experience with vocal disorders may miss the condition. This is why diagnosis takes an average of nearly 4.5 years, according to a study in the Journal of Voice, and may include everything from allergy testing to psychiatric evaluation, says Dr. Powell. Artificial intelligence technology trained to recognize the disorder could help eliminate such unnecessary testing.
Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, ALS)
For Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, “one of the first changes that’s notable is voice,” usually appearing before a formal diagnosis, says Anais Rameau, MD, an assistant professor of laryngology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and another member of the NIH project. Parkinson’s may soften the voice or make it sound monotone, while Alzheimer’s disease may change the content of speech, leading to an uptick in “umms” and a preference for pronouns over nouns.
With Parkinson’s, vocal changes can occur decades before movement is affected. If doctors could detect the disease at this stage, before tremor emerged, they might be able to flag patients for early intervention, says Max Little, PhD, project director for the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative. “That is the ‘holy grail’ for finding an eventual cure.”
Again, the smartphone shows potential. In a 2022 Australian study, an AI-powered app was able to identify people with Parkinson’s based on brief voice recordings, although the sample size was small. On a larger scale, the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative collected some 17,000 samples from people across the world. “The aim was to remotely detect those with the condition using a telephone call,” says Dr. Little. It did so with about 65% accuracy. “While this is not accurate enough for clinical use, it shows the potential of the idea,” he says.
Dr. Rudzicz worked on the team behind Winterlight, an iPad app that analyzes 550 features of speech to detect dementia and Alzheimer’s (as well as mental illness). “We deployed it in long-term care facilities,” he says, identifying patients who need further review of their mental skills. Stroke is another area of interest, because slurred speech is a highly subjective measure, says Dr. Anderson. AI technology could provide a more objective evaluation.
Mood and psychiatric disorders (depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders)
No established biomarkers exist for diagnosing depression. Yet if you’re feeling down, there’s a good chance your friends can tell – even over the phone.
“We carry a lot of our mood in our voice,” says Dr. Powell. Bipolar disorder can also alter voice, making it louder and faster during manic periods, then slower and quieter during depressive bouts. The catatonic stage of schizophrenia often comes with “a very monotone, robotic voice,” says Dr. Anderson. “These are all something an algorithm can measure.”
Apps are already being used – often in research settings – to monitor voices during phone calls, analyzing rate, rhythm, volume, and pitch, to predict mood changes. For example, the PRIORI project at the University of Michigan is working on a smartphone app to identify mood changes in people with bipolar disorder, especially shifts that could increase suicide risk.
The content of speech may also offer clues. In a University of California, Los Angeles, study published in the journal PLoS One, people with mental illnesses answered computer-programmed questions (like “How have you been over the past few days?”) over the phone. An app analyzed their word choices, paying attention to how they changed over time. The researchers found that AI analysis of mood aligned well with doctors’ assessments and that some people in the study actually felt more comfortable talking to a computer.
Respiratory disorders (pneumonia, COPD)
Beyond talking, respiratory sounds like gasping or coughing may point to specific conditions. “Emphysema cough is different, COPD cough is different,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Researchers are trying to find out if COVID-19 has a distinct cough.
Breathing sounds can also serve as signposts. “There are different sounds when we can’t breathe,” says Dr. Bensoussan. One is called stridor, a high-pitched wheezing often resulting from a blocked airway. “I see tons of people [with stridor] misdiagnosed for years – they’ve been told they have asthma, but they don’t,” says Dr. Bensoussan. AI analysis of these sounds could help doctors more quickly identify respiratory disorders.
Pediatric voice and speech disorders (speech and language delays, autism)
Babies who later have autism cry differently as early as 6 months of age, which means an app like ChatterBaby could help flag children for early intervention, says Dr. Anderson. Autism is linked to several other diagnoses, such as epilepsy and sleep disorders. So analyzing an infant’s cry could prompt pediatricians to screen for a range of conditions.
ChatterBaby has been “incredibly accurate” in identifying when babies are in pain, says Dr. Anderson, because pain increases muscle tension, resulting in a louder, more energetic cry. The next goal: “We’re collecting voices from babies around the world,” she says, and then tracking those children for 7 years, looking to see if early vocal signs could predict developmental disorders. Vocal samples from young children could serve a similar purpose.
And that’s only the beginning
Eventually, AI technology may pick up disease-related voice changes that we can’t even hear. In a new Mayo Clinic study, certain vocal features detectable by AI – but not by the human ear – were linked to a three-fold increase in the likelihood of having plaque buildup in the arteries.
“Voice is a huge spectrum of vibrations,” explains study author Amir Lerman, MD. “We hear a very narrow range.”
The researchers aren’t sure why heart disease alters voice, but the autonomic nervous system may play a role, because it regulates the voice box as well as blood pressure and heart rate. Dr. Lerman says other conditions, like diseases of the nerves and gut, may similarly alter the voice. Beyond patient screening, this discovery could help doctors adjust medication doses remotely, in line with these inaudible vocal signals.
“Hopefully, in the next few years, this is going to come to practice,” says Dr. Lerman.
Still, in the face of that hope, privacy concerns remain. Voice is an identifier that’s protected by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which requires privacy of personal health information. That is a major reason why no large voice databases exist yet, says Dr. Bensoussan. (This makes collecting samples from children especially challenging.) Perhaps more concerning is the potential for diagnosing disease based on voice alone. “You could use that tool on anyone, including officials like the president,” says Dr. Rameau.
But the primary hurdle is the ethical sourcing of data to ensure a diversity of vocal samples. For the Voice as a Biomarker project, the researchers will establish voice quotas for different races and ethnicities, ensuring algorithms can accurately analyze a range of accents. Data from people with speech impediments will also be gathered.
Despite these challenges, researchers are optimistic. “Vocal analysis is going to be a great equalizer and improve health outcomes,” predicts Dr. Anderson. “I’m really happy that we are beginning to understand the strength of the voice.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
No, you can’t see a different doctor: We need zero tolerance of patient bias
It was 1970. I was in my second year of medical school. I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday.
Coming from the Deep South, I was very familiar with racial bias, but I did not expect it at that level and in that environment. From that point on, I was anxious at each patient encounter, concerned that this might happen again. And it did several times during my residency and fellowship.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration defines workplace violence as “any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults.”
There is considerable media focus on incidents of physical violence against health care workers, but when patients, their families, or visitors openly display bias and request a different doctor, nurse, or technician for nonmedical reasons, the impact is profound. This is extremely hurtful to a professional who has worked long and hard to acquire skills and expertise. And, while speech may not constitute violence in the strictest sense of the word, there is growing evidence that it can be physically harmful through its effect on the nervous system, even if no physical contact is involved.
Incidents of bias occur regularly and are clearly on the rise. In most cases the request for a different health care worker is granted to honor the rights of the patient. The healthcare worker is left alone and emotionally wounded; the healthcare institutions are complicit.
This bias is mostly racial but can also be based on religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, body size, accent, or gender.
An entire issue of the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics was devoted to this topic. From recognizing that there are limits to what clinicians should be expected to tolerate when patients’ preferences express unjust bias, the issue also explored where those limits should be placed, why, and who is obliged to enforce them.
The newly adopted Mass General Patient Code of Conduct is evidence that health care systems are beginning to recognize this problem and that such behavior will not be tolerated.
But having a zero-tolerance policy is not enough. We must have procedures in place to discourage and mitigate the impact of patient bias.
A clear definition of what constitutes a bias incident is essential. All team members must be made aware of the procedures for reporting such incidents and the chain of command for escalation. Reporting should be encouraged, and resources must be made available to impacted team members. Surveillance, monitoring, and review are also essential as is clarification on when patient preferences should be honored.
The Mayo Clinic 5 Step Plan is an excellent example of a protocol to deal with patient bias against health care workers and is based on a thoughtful analysis of what constitutes an unreasonable request for a different clinician. I’m pleased to report that my health care system (Inova Health) is developing a similar protocol.
The health care setting should be a bias-free zone for both patients and health care workers. I have been a strong advocate of patients’ rights and worked hard to guard against bias and eliminate disparities in care, but health care workers have rights as well.
We should expect to be treated with respect.
The views expressed by the author are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Inova Health System. Dr. Francis is a cardiologist at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, McLean, Va. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was 1970. I was in my second year of medical school. I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday.
Coming from the Deep South, I was very familiar with racial bias, but I did not expect it at that level and in that environment. From that point on, I was anxious at each patient encounter, concerned that this might happen again. And it did several times during my residency and fellowship.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration defines workplace violence as “any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults.”
There is considerable media focus on incidents of physical violence against health care workers, but when patients, their families, or visitors openly display bias and request a different doctor, nurse, or technician for nonmedical reasons, the impact is profound. This is extremely hurtful to a professional who has worked long and hard to acquire skills and expertise. And, while speech may not constitute violence in the strictest sense of the word, there is growing evidence that it can be physically harmful through its effect on the nervous system, even if no physical contact is involved.
Incidents of bias occur regularly and are clearly on the rise. In most cases the request for a different health care worker is granted to honor the rights of the patient. The healthcare worker is left alone and emotionally wounded; the healthcare institutions are complicit.
This bias is mostly racial but can also be based on religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, body size, accent, or gender.
An entire issue of the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics was devoted to this topic. From recognizing that there are limits to what clinicians should be expected to tolerate when patients’ preferences express unjust bias, the issue also explored where those limits should be placed, why, and who is obliged to enforce them.
The newly adopted Mass General Patient Code of Conduct is evidence that health care systems are beginning to recognize this problem and that such behavior will not be tolerated.
But having a zero-tolerance policy is not enough. We must have procedures in place to discourage and mitigate the impact of patient bias.
A clear definition of what constitutes a bias incident is essential. All team members must be made aware of the procedures for reporting such incidents and the chain of command for escalation. Reporting should be encouraged, and resources must be made available to impacted team members. Surveillance, monitoring, and review are also essential as is clarification on when patient preferences should be honored.
The Mayo Clinic 5 Step Plan is an excellent example of a protocol to deal with patient bias against health care workers and is based on a thoughtful analysis of what constitutes an unreasonable request for a different clinician. I’m pleased to report that my health care system (Inova Health) is developing a similar protocol.
The health care setting should be a bias-free zone for both patients and health care workers. I have been a strong advocate of patients’ rights and worked hard to guard against bias and eliminate disparities in care, but health care workers have rights as well.
We should expect to be treated with respect.
The views expressed by the author are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Inova Health System. Dr. Francis is a cardiologist at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, McLean, Va. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was 1970. I was in my second year of medical school. I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday.
Coming from the Deep South, I was very familiar with racial bias, but I did not expect it at that level and in that environment. From that point on, I was anxious at each patient encounter, concerned that this might happen again. And it did several times during my residency and fellowship.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration defines workplace violence as “any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults.”
There is considerable media focus on incidents of physical violence against health care workers, but when patients, their families, or visitors openly display bias and request a different doctor, nurse, or technician for nonmedical reasons, the impact is profound. This is extremely hurtful to a professional who has worked long and hard to acquire skills and expertise. And, while speech may not constitute violence in the strictest sense of the word, there is growing evidence that it can be physically harmful through its effect on the nervous system, even if no physical contact is involved.
Incidents of bias occur regularly and are clearly on the rise. In most cases the request for a different health care worker is granted to honor the rights of the patient. The healthcare worker is left alone and emotionally wounded; the healthcare institutions are complicit.
This bias is mostly racial but can also be based on religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, body size, accent, or gender.
An entire issue of the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics was devoted to this topic. From recognizing that there are limits to what clinicians should be expected to tolerate when patients’ preferences express unjust bias, the issue also explored where those limits should be placed, why, and who is obliged to enforce them.
The newly adopted Mass General Patient Code of Conduct is evidence that health care systems are beginning to recognize this problem and that such behavior will not be tolerated.
But having a zero-tolerance policy is not enough. We must have procedures in place to discourage and mitigate the impact of patient bias.
A clear definition of what constitutes a bias incident is essential. All team members must be made aware of the procedures for reporting such incidents and the chain of command for escalation. Reporting should be encouraged, and resources must be made available to impacted team members. Surveillance, monitoring, and review are also essential as is clarification on when patient preferences should be honored.
The Mayo Clinic 5 Step Plan is an excellent example of a protocol to deal with patient bias against health care workers and is based on a thoughtful analysis of what constitutes an unreasonable request for a different clinician. I’m pleased to report that my health care system (Inova Health) is developing a similar protocol.
The health care setting should be a bias-free zone for both patients and health care workers. I have been a strong advocate of patients’ rights and worked hard to guard against bias and eliminate disparities in care, but health care workers have rights as well.
We should expect to be treated with respect.
The views expressed by the author are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Inova Health System. Dr. Francis is a cardiologist at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, McLean, Va. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
States cracking down harder on docs who sexually abuse patients
It’s the latest example of states taking doctor sexual misconduct more seriously after longstanding criticism that medical boards have been too lenient.
The law, which takes effect in January 2023, requires the state’s medical board to permanently revoke these doctors’ licenses instead of allowing them to petition the board for reinstatement after 3 years.
“Physician licenses should not be reinstated after egregious sexual misconduct with patients. The doctor-patient relationship has to remain sacrosanct and trusted,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis.
Although the vast majority of the nation’s estimated 1 million doctors don’t sexually abuse patients, the problem is a national one.
The Federation of State Medical Boards defines sexual misconduct as the exploitation of the physician-patient relationship in a sexual way. The exploitation may be verbal or physical and can occur in person or virtually.
The FSMB conducted a 2-year review of how medical boards handled cases of sexual misconduct, issuing a report in 2020 that contained 38 recommended actions.
Four states in addition to California have enacted laws that incorporate some FSMB recommendations. These include revoking doctors’ licenses after a single egregious act of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault), regardless of whether the physician was charged or convicted; increased reporting by hospitals and doctors of sexual misconduct; and training of physicians to recognize and report sexual misconduct.
The four state laws are:
- Georgia’s HB 458. It was signed into law in May 2021, and it authorizes the medical board to revoke or suspend a license if a physician is found guilty of sexually assaulting a patient in a criminal case. Doctors are required to report other doctors who have sexually abused patients and to take continuing medical education (CME) units on sexual misconduct.
- Florida’s SB 1934. This legislation was signed into law in June 2021, and it bars physicians charged with serious crimes such as sexual assault, sexual misconduct against patients, or possession of child pornography from seeing patients until those charges are resolved by the legal system.
- West Virginia’s SB 603. Signed into law in March 2022 it prohibits the medical board from issuing a license to a physician who engaged in sexual activity or misconduct with a patient whose license was revoked in another state or was involved in other violations.
- Tennessee HB 1045. It was signed into law in May 2021, and authorizes the medical board, upon learning of an indictment against a physician for a controlled substance violation or sexual offense, to immediately suspend the doctor’s ability to prescribe controlled substances until the doctor’s case is resolved.
A published study identified a total of 1,721 reports of physician sexual misconduct that were submitted to the National Practitioner Data Bank between 2000 and 2019. The annual incidence of sexual misconduct reports averaged 10.8 per 100,000 U.S. physician licensees, said the researchers.
In a groundbreaking 2016 investigation, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reviewed thousands of documents and found more than 2,400 doctors whose sexual misconduct cases clearly involved patients since 1999.
Physician sexual misconduct is likely underreported
The actual incidence of physician-patient sexual misconduct is likely higher as a result of underreporting, according to the researchers.
Because a substantial power differential exists between patients and their physicians, the researchers noted, it follows that patient victims, like other sexual assault victims, may be unwilling or unable to report the incident in question.
Many violations involving physician sexual misconduct of patients never came to the attention of state regulators, according to the Journal-Constitution investigation. Reporting showed that hospitals, clinics, and fellow doctors fail to report sexual misconduct to regulators, despite laws in most states requiring them to do so.
Media investigations highlight medical board shortcomings
Public pressure on the California Medical Board increased after the Los Angeles Times investigated what happened to doctors who surrendered or had their licenses revoked after being reported for sexual abuse with patients. The Times revealed in 2021 that the board reinstated 10 of 17 doctors who petitioned for reinstatement.
They include Esmail Nadjmabadi, MD, of Bakersfield, Calif., who had sexually abused six female patients, including one in her mid-teens. The Times reported that, in 2009, he pleaded no contest to a criminal charge that he sexually exploited two or more women and surrendered his medical license the following year.
Five years later, Dr. Nadjmabadi petitioned the medical board to be reinstated and the board approved his request.
The California board has also reinstated several doctors who underwent sex offender rehabilitation. Board members rely heavily on a doctor’s evidence of rehabilitation, usually with the testimony of therapists hired by the doctor, and no input from the patients who were harmed, according to the Times’ investigation.
High-profile sexual misconduct or abuse cases involving Larry Nassar, MD, and Robert Anderson, MD, in Michigan; Richard Strauss, MD, in Ohio; and Ricardo Cruciani, MD, in New York, added to the mounting criticism that medical boards were too lenient in their handling of complaints of sexual misconduct.
Another state tackles sexual misconduct
Ohio’s medical board created an administrative rule stating that licensed physicians have a legal and ethical duty to report colleagues for sexual misconduct with patients and to complete a 1-hour CME training. Failure to report sexual misconduct complaints can lead to a doctor being permanently stripped of his license.
This happened to Robert S. Geiger, MD, in 2016 after not reporting his colleague James Bressi, MD, to the medical board after receiving complaints that Dr. Bressi was sexually abusing female patients at their pain clinic.
Dr. Bressi was convicted of sexual misconduct with a patient, stripped of his medical license, and sentenced to 59 days in prison.
“I think all of these reforms are a step in the right direction and will help to deter doctors from committing sexual misconduct to some extent,” said California activist Marian Hollingsworth, cofounder of the Patient Safety League.
But there’s room for improvement, she said, since “most states fall short in not requiring medical boards to notify law enforcement when they get a complaint of doctor sexual misconduct so the public can be aware of it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s the latest example of states taking doctor sexual misconduct more seriously after longstanding criticism that medical boards have been too lenient.
The law, which takes effect in January 2023, requires the state’s medical board to permanently revoke these doctors’ licenses instead of allowing them to petition the board for reinstatement after 3 years.
“Physician licenses should not be reinstated after egregious sexual misconduct with patients. The doctor-patient relationship has to remain sacrosanct and trusted,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis.
Although the vast majority of the nation’s estimated 1 million doctors don’t sexually abuse patients, the problem is a national one.
The Federation of State Medical Boards defines sexual misconduct as the exploitation of the physician-patient relationship in a sexual way. The exploitation may be verbal or physical and can occur in person or virtually.
The FSMB conducted a 2-year review of how medical boards handled cases of sexual misconduct, issuing a report in 2020 that contained 38 recommended actions.
Four states in addition to California have enacted laws that incorporate some FSMB recommendations. These include revoking doctors’ licenses after a single egregious act of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault), regardless of whether the physician was charged or convicted; increased reporting by hospitals and doctors of sexual misconduct; and training of physicians to recognize and report sexual misconduct.
The four state laws are:
- Georgia’s HB 458. It was signed into law in May 2021, and it authorizes the medical board to revoke or suspend a license if a physician is found guilty of sexually assaulting a patient in a criminal case. Doctors are required to report other doctors who have sexually abused patients and to take continuing medical education (CME) units on sexual misconduct.
- Florida’s SB 1934. This legislation was signed into law in June 2021, and it bars physicians charged with serious crimes such as sexual assault, sexual misconduct against patients, or possession of child pornography from seeing patients until those charges are resolved by the legal system.
- West Virginia’s SB 603. Signed into law in March 2022 it prohibits the medical board from issuing a license to a physician who engaged in sexual activity or misconduct with a patient whose license was revoked in another state or was involved in other violations.
- Tennessee HB 1045. It was signed into law in May 2021, and authorizes the medical board, upon learning of an indictment against a physician for a controlled substance violation or sexual offense, to immediately suspend the doctor’s ability to prescribe controlled substances until the doctor’s case is resolved.
A published study identified a total of 1,721 reports of physician sexual misconduct that were submitted to the National Practitioner Data Bank between 2000 and 2019. The annual incidence of sexual misconduct reports averaged 10.8 per 100,000 U.S. physician licensees, said the researchers.
In a groundbreaking 2016 investigation, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reviewed thousands of documents and found more than 2,400 doctors whose sexual misconduct cases clearly involved patients since 1999.
Physician sexual misconduct is likely underreported
The actual incidence of physician-patient sexual misconduct is likely higher as a result of underreporting, according to the researchers.
Because a substantial power differential exists between patients and their physicians, the researchers noted, it follows that patient victims, like other sexual assault victims, may be unwilling or unable to report the incident in question.
Many violations involving physician sexual misconduct of patients never came to the attention of state regulators, according to the Journal-Constitution investigation. Reporting showed that hospitals, clinics, and fellow doctors fail to report sexual misconduct to regulators, despite laws in most states requiring them to do so.
Media investigations highlight medical board shortcomings
Public pressure on the California Medical Board increased after the Los Angeles Times investigated what happened to doctors who surrendered or had their licenses revoked after being reported for sexual abuse with patients. The Times revealed in 2021 that the board reinstated 10 of 17 doctors who petitioned for reinstatement.
They include Esmail Nadjmabadi, MD, of Bakersfield, Calif., who had sexually abused six female patients, including one in her mid-teens. The Times reported that, in 2009, he pleaded no contest to a criminal charge that he sexually exploited two or more women and surrendered his medical license the following year.
Five years later, Dr. Nadjmabadi petitioned the medical board to be reinstated and the board approved his request.
The California board has also reinstated several doctors who underwent sex offender rehabilitation. Board members rely heavily on a doctor’s evidence of rehabilitation, usually with the testimony of therapists hired by the doctor, and no input from the patients who were harmed, according to the Times’ investigation.
High-profile sexual misconduct or abuse cases involving Larry Nassar, MD, and Robert Anderson, MD, in Michigan; Richard Strauss, MD, in Ohio; and Ricardo Cruciani, MD, in New York, added to the mounting criticism that medical boards were too lenient in their handling of complaints of sexual misconduct.
Another state tackles sexual misconduct
Ohio’s medical board created an administrative rule stating that licensed physicians have a legal and ethical duty to report colleagues for sexual misconduct with patients and to complete a 1-hour CME training. Failure to report sexual misconduct complaints can lead to a doctor being permanently stripped of his license.
This happened to Robert S. Geiger, MD, in 2016 after not reporting his colleague James Bressi, MD, to the medical board after receiving complaints that Dr. Bressi was sexually abusing female patients at their pain clinic.
Dr. Bressi was convicted of sexual misconduct with a patient, stripped of his medical license, and sentenced to 59 days in prison.
“I think all of these reforms are a step in the right direction and will help to deter doctors from committing sexual misconduct to some extent,” said California activist Marian Hollingsworth, cofounder of the Patient Safety League.
But there’s room for improvement, she said, since “most states fall short in not requiring medical boards to notify law enforcement when they get a complaint of doctor sexual misconduct so the public can be aware of it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s the latest example of states taking doctor sexual misconduct more seriously after longstanding criticism that medical boards have been too lenient.
The law, which takes effect in January 2023, requires the state’s medical board to permanently revoke these doctors’ licenses instead of allowing them to petition the board for reinstatement after 3 years.
“Physician licenses should not be reinstated after egregious sexual misconduct with patients. The doctor-patient relationship has to remain sacrosanct and trusted,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis.
Although the vast majority of the nation’s estimated 1 million doctors don’t sexually abuse patients, the problem is a national one.
The Federation of State Medical Boards defines sexual misconduct as the exploitation of the physician-patient relationship in a sexual way. The exploitation may be verbal or physical and can occur in person or virtually.
The FSMB conducted a 2-year review of how medical boards handled cases of sexual misconduct, issuing a report in 2020 that contained 38 recommended actions.
Four states in addition to California have enacted laws that incorporate some FSMB recommendations. These include revoking doctors’ licenses after a single egregious act of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault), regardless of whether the physician was charged or convicted; increased reporting by hospitals and doctors of sexual misconduct; and training of physicians to recognize and report sexual misconduct.
The four state laws are:
- Georgia’s HB 458. It was signed into law in May 2021, and it authorizes the medical board to revoke or suspend a license if a physician is found guilty of sexually assaulting a patient in a criminal case. Doctors are required to report other doctors who have sexually abused patients and to take continuing medical education (CME) units on sexual misconduct.
- Florida’s SB 1934. This legislation was signed into law in June 2021, and it bars physicians charged with serious crimes such as sexual assault, sexual misconduct against patients, or possession of child pornography from seeing patients until those charges are resolved by the legal system.
- West Virginia’s SB 603. Signed into law in March 2022 it prohibits the medical board from issuing a license to a physician who engaged in sexual activity or misconduct with a patient whose license was revoked in another state or was involved in other violations.
- Tennessee HB 1045. It was signed into law in May 2021, and authorizes the medical board, upon learning of an indictment against a physician for a controlled substance violation or sexual offense, to immediately suspend the doctor’s ability to prescribe controlled substances until the doctor’s case is resolved.
A published study identified a total of 1,721 reports of physician sexual misconduct that were submitted to the National Practitioner Data Bank between 2000 and 2019. The annual incidence of sexual misconduct reports averaged 10.8 per 100,000 U.S. physician licensees, said the researchers.
In a groundbreaking 2016 investigation, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reviewed thousands of documents and found more than 2,400 doctors whose sexual misconduct cases clearly involved patients since 1999.
Physician sexual misconduct is likely underreported
The actual incidence of physician-patient sexual misconduct is likely higher as a result of underreporting, according to the researchers.
Because a substantial power differential exists between patients and their physicians, the researchers noted, it follows that patient victims, like other sexual assault victims, may be unwilling or unable to report the incident in question.
Many violations involving physician sexual misconduct of patients never came to the attention of state regulators, according to the Journal-Constitution investigation. Reporting showed that hospitals, clinics, and fellow doctors fail to report sexual misconduct to regulators, despite laws in most states requiring them to do so.
Media investigations highlight medical board shortcomings
Public pressure on the California Medical Board increased after the Los Angeles Times investigated what happened to doctors who surrendered or had their licenses revoked after being reported for sexual abuse with patients. The Times revealed in 2021 that the board reinstated 10 of 17 doctors who petitioned for reinstatement.
They include Esmail Nadjmabadi, MD, of Bakersfield, Calif., who had sexually abused six female patients, including one in her mid-teens. The Times reported that, in 2009, he pleaded no contest to a criminal charge that he sexually exploited two or more women and surrendered his medical license the following year.
Five years later, Dr. Nadjmabadi petitioned the medical board to be reinstated and the board approved his request.
The California board has also reinstated several doctors who underwent sex offender rehabilitation. Board members rely heavily on a doctor’s evidence of rehabilitation, usually with the testimony of therapists hired by the doctor, and no input from the patients who were harmed, according to the Times’ investigation.
High-profile sexual misconduct or abuse cases involving Larry Nassar, MD, and Robert Anderson, MD, in Michigan; Richard Strauss, MD, in Ohio; and Ricardo Cruciani, MD, in New York, added to the mounting criticism that medical boards were too lenient in their handling of complaints of sexual misconduct.
Another state tackles sexual misconduct
Ohio’s medical board created an administrative rule stating that licensed physicians have a legal and ethical duty to report colleagues for sexual misconduct with patients and to complete a 1-hour CME training. Failure to report sexual misconduct complaints can lead to a doctor being permanently stripped of his license.
This happened to Robert S. Geiger, MD, in 2016 after not reporting his colleague James Bressi, MD, to the medical board after receiving complaints that Dr. Bressi was sexually abusing female patients at their pain clinic.
Dr. Bressi was convicted of sexual misconduct with a patient, stripped of his medical license, and sentenced to 59 days in prison.
“I think all of these reforms are a step in the right direction and will help to deter doctors from committing sexual misconduct to some extent,” said California activist Marian Hollingsworth, cofounder of the Patient Safety League.
But there’s room for improvement, she said, since “most states fall short in not requiring medical boards to notify law enforcement when they get a complaint of doctor sexual misconduct so the public can be aware of it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.