Neurology Reviews

A large Danish study supports a robust and long-term bidirectional relationship between epilepsy and depression, with implications for diagnosis and patient care. The findings “strongly support previous observations of a bidirectional association between these two brain disorders,” said Eva Bølling-Ladegaard, MD, a PhD student, department of clinical medicine (Neurology), Aarhus (Denmark) University.

“We add to the existing evidence in temporal range, showing that the increased risks of depression following epilepsy, and vice versa, are sustained over a much more extended time period than previously shown; that is, 20 years on both sides of receiving a diagnosis of the index disorder,” Ms. Bølling-Ladegaard said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Epilepsy then depression

The researchers examined the magnitude and long-term temporal association between epilepsy and depression. They compared the risk of the two brain disorders following another chronic disorder (asthma) in a nationwide, register-based, matched cohort study.

In a population of more than 8.7 million people, they identified 139,014 persons with epilepsy (54% males; median age at diagnosis, 43 years), 219,990 with depression (37% males; median age at diagnosis, 43 years), and 358,821 with asthma (49% males; median age at diagnosis, 29 years).

The rate of developing depression was increased nearly twofold among people with epilepsy compared with the matched population who did not have epilepsy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.82-1.95).

The rate of depression was highest during the first months and years after epilepsy diagnosis. It declined over time, yet remained significantly elevated throughout the 20+ years of observation.

The cumulative incidence of depression at 5 and 35 years’ follow-up in the epilepsy cohort was 1.37% and 6.05%, respectively, compared with 0.59% and 3.92% in the reference population.

The highest rate of depression after epilepsy was among individuals aged 40-59 years, and the lowest was among those aged 0-19 years at first epilepsy diagnosis.
 

Depression then epilepsy

The rate of developing epilepsy was increased more than twofold among patients with incident depression compared with the matched population who were without depression (aHR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.25-2.44).

As in the opposite analysis, the rate of epilepsy was highest during the first months and years after depression diagnosis and declined over time.

The cumulative incidence of epilepsy at 5 and 35 years after depression diagnosis was 1.10% and 4.19%, respectively, compared with 0.32% and 2.06% in the reference population.

The rate of epilepsy was highest among those aged 0-19 years at time of first depression diagnosis and was lowest among those aged 80+ at first depression diagnosis.

For comparison, after asthma diagnosis, rates of depression and epilepsy were increased 1.63-fold (95% CI, 1.59-1.67) and 1.48-fold (95% CI, 1.44-1.53), respectively, compared with matched individuals without asthma.

Using admission with seizures as a proxy for treatment failure, the researchers observed an increased risk of treatment failure among people with epilepsy who were diagnosed with depression.

“Our results support previous findings indicating worse seizure outcomes in people with epilepsy and coexisting depression,” said Ms. Bølling-Ladegaard.

“Increased clinical awareness of the association between epilepsy and depression is therefore needed in order to increase the proportion of patients that receive appropriate treatment and improve outcomes for these patient groups,” she said.
 

Clinical implications

Reached for comment, Zulfi Haneef, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, noted that the link between epilepsy and depression is “well-known.”

“However, typically one thinks of epilepsy as leading to depression, not vice versa. Here they show the risk of epilepsy following depression to be high (highest of the risks given), which is thought provoking. However, association does not imply causation,” Dr. Haneef said.

“Prima facie, there is no biological rationale for depression to lead to epilepsy,” he said. He noted that some antidepressants can reduce the seizure threshold.

The findings do have implications for care, he said.

“For neurologists, this is another study that exhorts them to screen for depression and treat adequately in all patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Haneef said.

“For psychiatrists, this study may give guidance to watch more carefully for seizures in patients with depression, especially when using antidepressant medications that induce seizures.

“For the general public with either epilepsy or depression, it would help them be aware about this bidirectional association,” Dr. Haneef said.

The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Epilepsy Association, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Bølling-Ladegaard and Dr. Haneef have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large Danish study supports a robust and long-term bidirectional relationship between epilepsy and depression, with implications for diagnosis and patient care. The findings “strongly support previous observations of a bidirectional association between these two brain disorders,” said Eva Bølling-Ladegaard, MD, a PhD student, department of clinical medicine (Neurology), Aarhus (Denmark) University.

“We add to the existing evidence in temporal range, showing that the increased risks of depression following epilepsy, and vice versa, are sustained over a much more extended time period than previously shown; that is, 20 years on both sides of receiving a diagnosis of the index disorder,” Ms. Bølling-Ladegaard said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Epilepsy then depression

The researchers examined the magnitude and long-term temporal association between epilepsy and depression. They compared the risk of the two brain disorders following another chronic disorder (asthma) in a nationwide, register-based, matched cohort study.

In a population of more than 8.7 million people, they identified 139,014 persons with epilepsy (54% males; median age at diagnosis, 43 years), 219,990 with depression (37% males; median age at diagnosis, 43 years), and 358,821 with asthma (49% males; median age at diagnosis, 29 years).

The rate of developing depression was increased nearly twofold among people with epilepsy compared with the matched population who did not have epilepsy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.82-1.95).

The rate of depression was highest during the first months and years after epilepsy diagnosis. It declined over time, yet remained significantly elevated throughout the 20+ years of observation.

The cumulative incidence of depression at 5 and 35 years’ follow-up in the epilepsy cohort was 1.37% and 6.05%, respectively, compared with 0.59% and 3.92% in the reference population.

The highest rate of depression after epilepsy was among individuals aged 40-59 years, and the lowest was among those aged 0-19 years at first epilepsy diagnosis.
 

Depression then epilepsy

The rate of developing epilepsy was increased more than twofold among patients with incident depression compared with the matched population who were without depression (aHR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.25-2.44).

As in the opposite analysis, the rate of epilepsy was highest during the first months and years after depression diagnosis and declined over time.

The cumulative incidence of epilepsy at 5 and 35 years after depression diagnosis was 1.10% and 4.19%, respectively, compared with 0.32% and 2.06% in the reference population.

The rate of epilepsy was highest among those aged 0-19 years at time of first depression diagnosis and was lowest among those aged 80+ at first depression diagnosis.

For comparison, after asthma diagnosis, rates of depression and epilepsy were increased 1.63-fold (95% CI, 1.59-1.67) and 1.48-fold (95% CI, 1.44-1.53), respectively, compared with matched individuals without asthma.

Using admission with seizures as a proxy for treatment failure, the researchers observed an increased risk of treatment failure among people with epilepsy who were diagnosed with depression.

“Our results support previous findings indicating worse seizure outcomes in people with epilepsy and coexisting depression,” said Ms. Bølling-Ladegaard.

“Increased clinical awareness of the association between epilepsy and depression is therefore needed in order to increase the proportion of patients that receive appropriate treatment and improve outcomes for these patient groups,” she said.
 

Clinical implications

Reached for comment, Zulfi Haneef, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, noted that the link between epilepsy and depression is “well-known.”

“However, typically one thinks of epilepsy as leading to depression, not vice versa. Here they show the risk of epilepsy following depression to be high (highest of the risks given), which is thought provoking. However, association does not imply causation,” Dr. Haneef said.

“Prima facie, there is no biological rationale for depression to lead to epilepsy,” he said. He noted that some antidepressants can reduce the seizure threshold.

The findings do have implications for care, he said.

“For neurologists, this is another study that exhorts them to screen for depression and treat adequately in all patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Haneef said.

“For psychiatrists, this study may give guidance to watch more carefully for seizures in patients with depression, especially when using antidepressant medications that induce seizures.

“For the general public with either epilepsy or depression, it would help them be aware about this bidirectional association,” Dr. Haneef said.

The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Epilepsy Association, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Bølling-Ladegaard and Dr. Haneef have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large Danish study supports a robust and long-term bidirectional relationship between epilepsy and depression, with implications for diagnosis and patient care. The findings “strongly support previous observations of a bidirectional association between these two brain disorders,” said Eva Bølling-Ladegaard, MD, a PhD student, department of clinical medicine (Neurology), Aarhus (Denmark) University.

“We add to the existing evidence in temporal range, showing that the increased risks of depression following epilepsy, and vice versa, are sustained over a much more extended time period than previously shown; that is, 20 years on both sides of receiving a diagnosis of the index disorder,” Ms. Bølling-Ladegaard said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Epilepsy then depression

The researchers examined the magnitude and long-term temporal association between epilepsy and depression. They compared the risk of the two brain disorders following another chronic disorder (asthma) in a nationwide, register-based, matched cohort study.

In a population of more than 8.7 million people, they identified 139,014 persons with epilepsy (54% males; median age at diagnosis, 43 years), 219,990 with depression (37% males; median age at diagnosis, 43 years), and 358,821 with asthma (49% males; median age at diagnosis, 29 years).

The rate of developing depression was increased nearly twofold among people with epilepsy compared with the matched population who did not have epilepsy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.82-1.95).

The rate of depression was highest during the first months and years after epilepsy diagnosis. It declined over time, yet remained significantly elevated throughout the 20+ years of observation.

The cumulative incidence of depression at 5 and 35 years’ follow-up in the epilepsy cohort was 1.37% and 6.05%, respectively, compared with 0.59% and 3.92% in the reference population.

The highest rate of depression after epilepsy was among individuals aged 40-59 years, and the lowest was among those aged 0-19 years at first epilepsy diagnosis.
 

Depression then epilepsy

The rate of developing epilepsy was increased more than twofold among patients with incident depression compared with the matched population who were without depression (aHR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.25-2.44).

As in the opposite analysis, the rate of epilepsy was highest during the first months and years after depression diagnosis and declined over time.

The cumulative incidence of epilepsy at 5 and 35 years after depression diagnosis was 1.10% and 4.19%, respectively, compared with 0.32% and 2.06% in the reference population.

The rate of epilepsy was highest among those aged 0-19 years at time of first depression diagnosis and was lowest among those aged 80+ at first depression diagnosis.

For comparison, after asthma diagnosis, rates of depression and epilepsy were increased 1.63-fold (95% CI, 1.59-1.67) and 1.48-fold (95% CI, 1.44-1.53), respectively, compared with matched individuals without asthma.

Using admission with seizures as a proxy for treatment failure, the researchers observed an increased risk of treatment failure among people with epilepsy who were diagnosed with depression.

“Our results support previous findings indicating worse seizure outcomes in people with epilepsy and coexisting depression,” said Ms. Bølling-Ladegaard.

“Increased clinical awareness of the association between epilepsy and depression is therefore needed in order to increase the proportion of patients that receive appropriate treatment and improve outcomes for these patient groups,” she said.
 

Clinical implications

Reached for comment, Zulfi Haneef, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, noted that the link between epilepsy and depression is “well-known.”

“However, typically one thinks of epilepsy as leading to depression, not vice versa. Here they show the risk of epilepsy following depression to be high (highest of the risks given), which is thought provoking. However, association does not imply causation,” Dr. Haneef said.

“Prima facie, there is no biological rationale for depression to lead to epilepsy,” he said. He noted that some antidepressants can reduce the seizure threshold.

The findings do have implications for care, he said.

“For neurologists, this is another study that exhorts them to screen for depression and treat adequately in all patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Haneef said.

“For psychiatrists, this study may give guidance to watch more carefully for seizures in patients with depression, especially when using antidepressant medications that induce seizures.

“For the general public with either epilepsy or depression, it would help them be aware about this bidirectional association,” Dr. Haneef said.

The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Epilepsy Association, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Bølling-Ladegaard and Dr. Haneef have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Because of the high out-of-pocket costs of new-to-market neurologic drugs that are of similar benefit as older agents, only a small percentage of patients with neurologic disorders have access to these cutting-edge medications, new research shows.

“Our study of people with neurologic conditions found that fewer than 20% were being treated with new medications,” study author Brian C. Callaghan, MD, with University of Michigan Health in Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

“For new, high-cost medications that have similar effectiveness to older drugs, limited use is likely appropriate. However, future studies are needed to look into whether the high costs are barriers to those new medications that can really make a difference for people living with neurologic disease,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Most expensive drugs

Using insurance claims data, the investigators compared the utilization and costs of new-to-market drugs from 2014 to 2018 with those for existing guideline-supported medications for treating 11 neurologic conditions.

The new drugs included:

• erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for migraine.
• ocrelizumab and peginterferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis (MS).
• pimavanserin and safinamide for Parkinson’s disease.
• droxidopa for orthostatic hypertension.
• eculizumab for myasthenia gravis (MG).
• edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
• deutetrabenazine and valbenazine for Huntington’s disease and tardive dyskinesia.
• patisiran and inotersen for transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR).
• eteplirsen and deflazacort for Duchenne disease.
• nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

Utilization of new drugs was modest – they accounted for one in five prescriptions for every condition except tardive dyskinesia (32% for valbenazine), the researchers noted.

Mean out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for the new medications, although there was large variability among individual drugs.

The two most expensive drugs were edaravone, for ALS, with a mean out-of-pocket cost of $713 for a 30-day supply, and eculizumab, for MG, which costs $91 per month.

“For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs were highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications,” the authors reported.

They noted that potential reasons for low utilization of newer agents include delay in provider uptake and prescriber and/or patient avoidance because of high cost.

Given that most of the new neurologic agents offer little advantage compared with existing treatments – exceptions being new drugs for SMA and ATTR – drug costs should be a key consideration in prescribing decisions, Dr. Callaghan and colleagues concluded.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up time was short for some of the recently approved medications. Another limitation is that the number of people in the study who had rare diseases was small.
 

Revolution in neurotherapeutics

“We are living in a time when new treatments bring hope to people with neurologic diseases and disorders,” Orly Avitzur, MD, president of the American Academy of Neurology, said in a statement.

“However, even existing prescription medication can be expensive and drug prices continue to rise. In order for neurologists to provide people with the highest quality care, it is imperative that new drugs are accessible and affordable to the people who need them,” Dr. Avitzur added.

Writing in a linked editorial, A. Gordon Smith, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said there is a revolution in neurotherapeutics, with particularly robust growth in new drug approvals for orphan diseases (those affecting < 200,000 Americans).

“This study adds to a growing literature indicating rising drug prices are a threat to the health care system. No matter how effective a disease-modifying therapy may be, if a patient cannot afford the cost, it doesn’t work,” Dr. Smith wrote.

He added that neurologists must be “diligent in assessing for financial toxicity and appropriately tailor individual treatment recommendations. We must insist on development of point-of-care tools to accurately estimate each patient’s potential financial toxicity including RTBT [real-time benefit tools].

“Neurologists’ primary obligation is to the individual patient, but we are also compelled to support access to high-quality care for all people, which requires advocacy for appropriate policy reforms to ensure value based and fair drug pricing and treatment success,” Dr. Smith added.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology Health Services Research Subcommittee. Dr. Callaghan consults for a PCORI grant, DynaMed, receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology, and performs medical/legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Because of the high out-of-pocket costs of new-to-market neurologic drugs that are of similar benefit as older agents, only a small percentage of patients with neurologic disorders have access to these cutting-edge medications, new research shows.

“Our study of people with neurologic conditions found that fewer than 20% were being treated with new medications,” study author Brian C. Callaghan, MD, with University of Michigan Health in Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

“For new, high-cost medications that have similar effectiveness to older drugs, limited use is likely appropriate. However, future studies are needed to look into whether the high costs are barriers to those new medications that can really make a difference for people living with neurologic disease,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Most expensive drugs

Using insurance claims data, the investigators compared the utilization and costs of new-to-market drugs from 2014 to 2018 with those for existing guideline-supported medications for treating 11 neurologic conditions.

The new drugs included:

• erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for migraine.
• ocrelizumab and peginterferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis (MS).
• pimavanserin and safinamide for Parkinson’s disease.
• droxidopa for orthostatic hypertension.
• eculizumab for myasthenia gravis (MG).
• edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
• deutetrabenazine and valbenazine for Huntington’s disease and tardive dyskinesia.
• patisiran and inotersen for transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR).
• eteplirsen and deflazacort for Duchenne disease.
• nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

Utilization of new drugs was modest – they accounted for one in five prescriptions for every condition except tardive dyskinesia (32% for valbenazine), the researchers noted.

Mean out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for the new medications, although there was large variability among individual drugs.

The two most expensive drugs were edaravone, for ALS, with a mean out-of-pocket cost of $713 for a 30-day supply, and eculizumab, for MG, which costs $91 per month.

“For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs were highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications,” the authors reported.

They noted that potential reasons for low utilization of newer agents include delay in provider uptake and prescriber and/or patient avoidance because of high cost.

Given that most of the new neurologic agents offer little advantage compared with existing treatments – exceptions being new drugs for SMA and ATTR – drug costs should be a key consideration in prescribing decisions, Dr. Callaghan and colleagues concluded.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up time was short for some of the recently approved medications. Another limitation is that the number of people in the study who had rare diseases was small.
 

Revolution in neurotherapeutics

“We are living in a time when new treatments bring hope to people with neurologic diseases and disorders,” Orly Avitzur, MD, president of the American Academy of Neurology, said in a statement.

“However, even existing prescription medication can be expensive and drug prices continue to rise. In order for neurologists to provide people with the highest quality care, it is imperative that new drugs are accessible and affordable to the people who need them,” Dr. Avitzur added.

Writing in a linked editorial, A. Gordon Smith, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said there is a revolution in neurotherapeutics, with particularly robust growth in new drug approvals for orphan diseases (those affecting < 200,000 Americans).

“This study adds to a growing literature indicating rising drug prices are a threat to the health care system. No matter how effective a disease-modifying therapy may be, if a patient cannot afford the cost, it doesn’t work,” Dr. Smith wrote.

He added that neurologists must be “diligent in assessing for financial toxicity and appropriately tailor individual treatment recommendations. We must insist on development of point-of-care tools to accurately estimate each patient’s potential financial toxicity including RTBT [real-time benefit tools].

“Neurologists’ primary obligation is to the individual patient, but we are also compelled to support access to high-quality care for all people, which requires advocacy for appropriate policy reforms to ensure value based and fair drug pricing and treatment success,” Dr. Smith added.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology Health Services Research Subcommittee. Dr. Callaghan consults for a PCORI grant, DynaMed, receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology, and performs medical/legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Because of the high out-of-pocket costs of new-to-market neurologic drugs that are of similar benefit as older agents, only a small percentage of patients with neurologic disorders have access to these cutting-edge medications, new research shows.

“Our study of people with neurologic conditions found that fewer than 20% were being treated with new medications,” study author Brian C. Callaghan, MD, with University of Michigan Health in Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

“For new, high-cost medications that have similar effectiveness to older drugs, limited use is likely appropriate. However, future studies are needed to look into whether the high costs are barriers to those new medications that can really make a difference for people living with neurologic disease,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Most expensive drugs

Using insurance claims data, the investigators compared the utilization and costs of new-to-market drugs from 2014 to 2018 with those for existing guideline-supported medications for treating 11 neurologic conditions.

The new drugs included:

• erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for migraine.
• ocrelizumab and peginterferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis (MS).
• pimavanserin and safinamide for Parkinson’s disease.
• droxidopa for orthostatic hypertension.
• eculizumab for myasthenia gravis (MG).
• edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
• deutetrabenazine and valbenazine for Huntington’s disease and tardive dyskinesia.
• patisiran and inotersen for transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR).
• eteplirsen and deflazacort for Duchenne disease.
• nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

Utilization of new drugs was modest – they accounted for one in five prescriptions for every condition except tardive dyskinesia (32% for valbenazine), the researchers noted.

Mean out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for the new medications, although there was large variability among individual drugs.

The two most expensive drugs were edaravone, for ALS, with a mean out-of-pocket cost of $713 for a 30-day supply, and eculizumab, for MG, which costs $91 per month.

“For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs were highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications,” the authors reported.

They noted that potential reasons for low utilization of newer agents include delay in provider uptake and prescriber and/or patient avoidance because of high cost.

Given that most of the new neurologic agents offer little advantage compared with existing treatments – exceptions being new drugs for SMA and ATTR – drug costs should be a key consideration in prescribing decisions, Dr. Callaghan and colleagues concluded.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up time was short for some of the recently approved medications. Another limitation is that the number of people in the study who had rare diseases was small.
 

Revolution in neurotherapeutics

“We are living in a time when new treatments bring hope to people with neurologic diseases and disorders,” Orly Avitzur, MD, president of the American Academy of Neurology, said in a statement.

“However, even existing prescription medication can be expensive and drug prices continue to rise. In order for neurologists to provide people with the highest quality care, it is imperative that new drugs are accessible and affordable to the people who need them,” Dr. Avitzur added.

Writing in a linked editorial, A. Gordon Smith, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said there is a revolution in neurotherapeutics, with particularly robust growth in new drug approvals for orphan diseases (those affecting < 200,000 Americans).

“This study adds to a growing literature indicating rising drug prices are a threat to the health care system. No matter how effective a disease-modifying therapy may be, if a patient cannot afford the cost, it doesn’t work,” Dr. Smith wrote.

He added that neurologists must be “diligent in assessing for financial toxicity and appropriately tailor individual treatment recommendations. We must insist on development of point-of-care tools to accurately estimate each patient’s potential financial toxicity including RTBT [real-time benefit tools].

“Neurologists’ primary obligation is to the individual patient, but we are also compelled to support access to high-quality care for all people, which requires advocacy for appropriate policy reforms to ensure value based and fair drug pricing and treatment success,” Dr. Smith added.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology Health Services Research Subcommittee. Dr. Callaghan consults for a PCORI grant, DynaMed, receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology, and performs medical/legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

A new study supports the hypothesis that changes in levels of amyloid and tau occur many years before the emergence of clinical symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

“Our results confirm accelerated biomarker changes during preclinical AD and highlight the important role of amyloid levels in tau accelerations,” the investigators note.

“These data may suggest that there is a short therapeutic window for slowing AD pathogenesis prior to the emergence of clinical symptoms – and that this window may occur after amyloid accumulation begins but before amyloid has substantial impacts on tau accumulation,” study investigator Corinne Pettigrew, PhD, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Novel long-term CSF data

The study builds on previous research by examining changes in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers over longer periods than had been done previously, particularly among largely middle-aged and cognitively normal at baseline individuals.

The researchers examined changes in amyloid beta (Aβ) 42/Aβ40, phosphorylated tau181 (p-tau181), and total tau (t-tau) in CSF over an average of 10.7 years (and up to 23 years) among 278 individuals who were largely middle-aged persons who were cognitively normal at baseline.

“To our knowledge, no prior study among initially cognitively normal, primarily middle-aged individuals has described CSF AD biomarker changes over this duration of follow-up,” the researchers write.

During follow-up, 94 individuals who initially had normal cognition developed mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

Lower baseline levels of amyloid were associated with greater increases in tau (more strongly in men than women), while accelerations in tau were more closely linked to onset of MCI, the researchers report.

Among individuals who developed MCI, biomarker levels were more abnormal and tau increased to a greater extent prior to the onset of MCI symptoms, they found.
 

Clear impact of APOE4

The findings also suggest that among APOE4 carriers, amyloid onset occurs at an earlier age and rates of amyloid positivity are higher, but there are no differences in rates of change in amyloid over time.

“APOE4 genetic status was not related to changes in CSF beta-amyloid after accounting for the fact that APOE4 carriers have higher rates of amyloid positivity,” said Dr. Pettigrew.

“These findings suggest that APOE4 genetic status shifts the age of onset of amyloid accumulation (with APOE4 carriers having an earlier age of onset compared to non-carriers), but that APOE4 is not related to rates of change in CSF beta-amyloid over time,” she added.

“Thus, cognitively normal APOE4 carriers may be in more advanced preclinical AD stages at younger ages than individuals who are not APOE4 carriers, which is likely relevant for optimizing clinical trial recruitment strategies,” she said.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pettigrew has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The original article contains a complete list of author disclosures.

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

A new study supports the hypothesis that changes in levels of amyloid and tau occur many years before the emergence of clinical symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

“Our results confirm accelerated biomarker changes during preclinical AD and highlight the important role of amyloid levels in tau accelerations,” the investigators note.

“These data may suggest that there is a short therapeutic window for slowing AD pathogenesis prior to the emergence of clinical symptoms – and that this window may occur after amyloid accumulation begins but before amyloid has substantial impacts on tau accumulation,” study investigator Corinne Pettigrew, PhD, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Novel long-term CSF data

The study builds on previous research by examining changes in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers over longer periods than had been done previously, particularly among largely middle-aged and cognitively normal at baseline individuals.

The researchers examined changes in amyloid beta (Aβ) 42/Aβ40, phosphorylated tau181 (p-tau181), and total tau (t-tau) in CSF over an average of 10.7 years (and up to 23 years) among 278 individuals who were largely middle-aged persons who were cognitively normal at baseline.

“To our knowledge, no prior study among initially cognitively normal, primarily middle-aged individuals has described CSF AD biomarker changes over this duration of follow-up,” the researchers write.

During follow-up, 94 individuals who initially had normal cognition developed mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

Lower baseline levels of amyloid were associated with greater increases in tau (more strongly in men than women), while accelerations in tau were more closely linked to onset of MCI, the researchers report.

Among individuals who developed MCI, biomarker levels were more abnormal and tau increased to a greater extent prior to the onset of MCI symptoms, they found.
 

Clear impact of APOE4

The findings also suggest that among APOE4 carriers, amyloid onset occurs at an earlier age and rates of amyloid positivity are higher, but there are no differences in rates of change in amyloid over time.

“APOE4 genetic status was not related to changes in CSF beta-amyloid after accounting for the fact that APOE4 carriers have higher rates of amyloid positivity,” said Dr. Pettigrew.

“These findings suggest that APOE4 genetic status shifts the age of onset of amyloid accumulation (with APOE4 carriers having an earlier age of onset compared to non-carriers), but that APOE4 is not related to rates of change in CSF beta-amyloid over time,” she added.

“Thus, cognitively normal APOE4 carriers may be in more advanced preclinical AD stages at younger ages than individuals who are not APOE4 carriers, which is likely relevant for optimizing clinical trial recruitment strategies,” she said.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pettigrew has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The original article contains a complete list of author disclosures.

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

A new study supports the hypothesis that changes in levels of amyloid and tau occur many years before the emergence of clinical symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

“Our results confirm accelerated biomarker changes during preclinical AD and highlight the important role of amyloid levels in tau accelerations,” the investigators note.

“These data may suggest that there is a short therapeutic window for slowing AD pathogenesis prior to the emergence of clinical symptoms – and that this window may occur after amyloid accumulation begins but before amyloid has substantial impacts on tau accumulation,” study investigator Corinne Pettigrew, PhD, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Novel long-term CSF data

The study builds on previous research by examining changes in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers over longer periods than had been done previously, particularly among largely middle-aged and cognitively normal at baseline individuals.

The researchers examined changes in amyloid beta (Aβ) 42/Aβ40, phosphorylated tau181 (p-tau181), and total tau (t-tau) in CSF over an average of 10.7 years (and up to 23 years) among 278 individuals who were largely middle-aged persons who were cognitively normal at baseline.

“To our knowledge, no prior study among initially cognitively normal, primarily middle-aged individuals has described CSF AD biomarker changes over this duration of follow-up,” the researchers write.

During follow-up, 94 individuals who initially had normal cognition developed mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

Lower baseline levels of amyloid were associated with greater increases in tau (more strongly in men than women), while accelerations in tau were more closely linked to onset of MCI, the researchers report.

Among individuals who developed MCI, biomarker levels were more abnormal and tau increased to a greater extent prior to the onset of MCI symptoms, they found.
 

Clear impact of APOE4

The findings also suggest that among APOE4 carriers, amyloid onset occurs at an earlier age and rates of amyloid positivity are higher, but there are no differences in rates of change in amyloid over time.

“APOE4 genetic status was not related to changes in CSF beta-amyloid after accounting for the fact that APOE4 carriers have higher rates of amyloid positivity,” said Dr. Pettigrew.

“These findings suggest that APOE4 genetic status shifts the age of onset of amyloid accumulation (with APOE4 carriers having an earlier age of onset compared to non-carriers), but that APOE4 is not related to rates of change in CSF beta-amyloid over time,” she added.

“Thus, cognitively normal APOE4 carriers may be in more advanced preclinical AD stages at younger ages than individuals who are not APOE4 carriers, which is likely relevant for optimizing clinical trial recruitment strategies,” she said.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pettigrew has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The original article contains a complete list of author disclosures.

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

I don’t do email. Or texting. You want to talk to me and my staff? Pick up a phone.

Some people say I’m old fashioned, or not patient-friendly, or whatever.

I don’t care.

To me there are too many issues with things that can get missed in emails, too many security concerns, too many ways to alter them so it looks like something different was said.

Now, a recent study of an EHR system found that 3% of emails from patients had negative, if not downright nasty, sentiments expressed to their physicians.

Here’s some examples:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in hell. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

The study also noted that the most common expletive used by patients is the F-bomb, and that words with violent connotations, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill” were often used in such emails. The last are definitely concerning in an era of increased violence directed at doctors and other health care workers who are just trying to do their jobs.

Now, I know doctors are a microcosm of society. Like patients, most are decent people trying their best, but a few are ... not particularly nice.

But still, I don’t think we, or anyone for that matter, need to be getting emails of this nature. It certainly doesn’t put anyone in a good position, or allow for objective, unbiased, care. Even if they’re only 3% of emails, that can still be quite a few.

Who needs that?

One of the issues with email is that it’s easy to type something nasty and hit “send,” then later have it occur to you that maybe you should have calmed down first. Granted, that sort of thing can (and does) happen when talking to another person (by phone or in person), but it’s harder.

Direct personal contact, especially face-to-face, appears to lessen impulsive reactions for most. The other person isn’t an invisible email address, they’re someone you’re talking to. You can read tone-of-voice and facial expressions. Again, I’m aware people still can lose their cool in person, but it’s harder.

In-person communication, or on the phone, adds a greater chance to reason through things, explain misunderstandings, and clarify statements rather than just hitting send and running into the next exam room. Plus, it ensures that all noncritical patient interactions occur during business hours, when we’re in doctor mode, rather than at 2:45 a.m. when we look at the iPhone while waiting for the dog to come back in. That’s a terrible time to receive and send medical (or any) emails for both doctor and patient.

A lot rides on every one of my patient interactions, and that’s why I still want them done directly. If that makes me old-fashioned, so be it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I don’t do email. Or texting. You want to talk to me and my staff? Pick up a phone.

Some people say I’m old fashioned, or not patient-friendly, or whatever.

I don’t care.

To me there are too many issues with things that can get missed in emails, too many security concerns, too many ways to alter them so it looks like something different was said.

Now, a recent study of an EHR system found that 3% of emails from patients had negative, if not downright nasty, sentiments expressed to their physicians.

Here’s some examples:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in hell. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

The study also noted that the most common expletive used by patients is the F-bomb, and that words with violent connotations, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill” were often used in such emails. The last are definitely concerning in an era of increased violence directed at doctors and other health care workers who are just trying to do their jobs.

Now, I know doctors are a microcosm of society. Like patients, most are decent people trying their best, but a few are ... not particularly nice.

But still, I don’t think we, or anyone for that matter, need to be getting emails of this nature. It certainly doesn’t put anyone in a good position, or allow for objective, unbiased, care. Even if they’re only 3% of emails, that can still be quite a few.

Who needs that?

One of the issues with email is that it’s easy to type something nasty and hit “send,” then later have it occur to you that maybe you should have calmed down first. Granted, that sort of thing can (and does) happen when talking to another person (by phone or in person), but it’s harder.

Direct personal contact, especially face-to-face, appears to lessen impulsive reactions for most. The other person isn’t an invisible email address, they’re someone you’re talking to. You can read tone-of-voice and facial expressions. Again, I’m aware people still can lose their cool in person, but it’s harder.

In-person communication, or on the phone, adds a greater chance to reason through things, explain misunderstandings, and clarify statements rather than just hitting send and running into the next exam room. Plus, it ensures that all noncritical patient interactions occur during business hours, when we’re in doctor mode, rather than at 2:45 a.m. when we look at the iPhone while waiting for the dog to come back in. That’s a terrible time to receive and send medical (or any) emails for both doctor and patient.

A lot rides on every one of my patient interactions, and that’s why I still want them done directly. If that makes me old-fashioned, so be it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I don’t do email. Or texting. You want to talk to me and my staff? Pick up a phone.

Some people say I’m old fashioned, or not patient-friendly, or whatever.

I don’t care.

To me there are too many issues with things that can get missed in emails, too many security concerns, too many ways to alter them so it looks like something different was said.

Now, a recent study of an EHR system found that 3% of emails from patients had negative, if not downright nasty, sentiments expressed to their physicians.

Here’s some examples:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in hell. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

The study also noted that the most common expletive used by patients is the F-bomb, and that words with violent connotations, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill” were often used in such emails. The last are definitely concerning in an era of increased violence directed at doctors and other health care workers who are just trying to do their jobs.

Now, I know doctors are a microcosm of society. Like patients, most are decent people trying their best, but a few are ... not particularly nice.

But still, I don’t think we, or anyone for that matter, need to be getting emails of this nature. It certainly doesn’t put anyone in a good position, or allow for objective, unbiased, care. Even if they’re only 3% of emails, that can still be quite a few.

Who needs that?

One of the issues with email is that it’s easy to type something nasty and hit “send,” then later have it occur to you that maybe you should have calmed down first. Granted, that sort of thing can (and does) happen when talking to another person (by phone or in person), but it’s harder.

Direct personal contact, especially face-to-face, appears to lessen impulsive reactions for most. The other person isn’t an invisible email address, they’re someone you’re talking to. You can read tone-of-voice and facial expressions. Again, I’m aware people still can lose their cool in person, but it’s harder.

In-person communication, or on the phone, adds a greater chance to reason through things, explain misunderstandings, and clarify statements rather than just hitting send and running into the next exam room. Plus, it ensures that all noncritical patient interactions occur during business hours, when we’re in doctor mode, rather than at 2:45 a.m. when we look at the iPhone while waiting for the dog to come back in. That’s a terrible time to receive and send medical (or any) emails for both doctor and patient.

A lot rides on every one of my patient interactions, and that’s why I still want them done directly. If that makes me old-fashioned, so be it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

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

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

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

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

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

In a study published online, researchers used artificial intelligence to analyze more than 1.4 million electronic health record emails to physicians – and the results aren’t pretty.

Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.

But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.

“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.

Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”

Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”

“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.

“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”

Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.

Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.

Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”

On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.

Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.

Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.

The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”

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

In a study published online, researchers used artificial intelligence to analyze more than 1.4 million electronic health record emails to physicians – and the results aren’t pretty.

Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.

But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.

“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.

Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”

Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”

“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.

“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”

Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.

Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.

Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”

On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.

Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.

Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.

The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”

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

In a study published online, researchers used artificial intelligence to analyze more than 1.4 million electronic health record emails to physicians – and the results aren’t pretty.

Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.

But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.

“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.

Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”

Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”

“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.

“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”

Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.

Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.

Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”

On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.

Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.

Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.

The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”

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

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

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

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

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

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

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

An international panel of experts has proposed a new way to classify multiple sclerosis (MS) that would ultimately change the way patients are diagnosed and treated. The goal is to eventually move away from the current system, which classifies MS based on disease progression into distinct relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive, and primary progressive subtypes.

Members of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in Multiple Sclerosis, which developed the framework, note the new framework is based on underlying biology of disease and acknowledges the different trajectories of individual patients. “The categorization of patients into distinct subtypes or stages is artificial,” said framework coauthor Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic. “The rationale for the new framework was recent studies demonstrating that the biologic processes that underlie relapses and progression are present to varying degrees throughout the disease course, representing a continuum.”

The proposal was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

A more responsive system

Since the current MS classification, dubbed the Lublin-Reingold descriptors, was introduced, there have been calls for a different system that is more responsive to biological changes inherent in MS. The committee, which is jointly sponsored by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and the U.S. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, responded by clarifying clinical course descriptions published in 1996 and 2013. The proposed framework grew out of that process.

“One of the main points is the concept that patients don’t evolve into secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Cohen said. “The processes that underlie progression and the findings of proxy measures of progression are present from the earliest stages of the disease.”

In its report, the committee reviews current data on the pathophysiology of injury and compensatory mechanisms in MS, presenting findings that suggest disease progression is caused not by a single disease mechanism, but from a combination of several processes that vary from patient to patient.

Current research studies highlighted in the report include those focused on mechanisms of injury, such as acute and chronic inflammation, myelin loss, nerve fiber and neuron loss, and mitochondrial dysfunction. How the body responds to that injury is likely to determine how MS evolves in each patient, the committee wrote.

Studies point to a range of factors that influence how MS manifests and progresses, including patients’ age at onset, biological sex, genes, race, ethnicity, comorbid health conditions, health behaviors, therapies, and social and environmental exposures.
 

Potential for better treatments

Any new framework for classifying the disease in the future would enable the development and approval of more biologically based treatment approaches, Dr. Cohen said. “One anticipated advantage of the new framework is that treatments should be evaluated based on their efficacy on biologic processes, not in artificial categories of patients.”

Dr. Cohen and other committee members acknowledged that developing the framework is just a first step in what would likely be a long and complicated process. “This proposal is among many initiatives that the committee has supported over the years as part of its overarching aim to constantly improve, update, and enhance clinical trial design and inform clinical care delivery for people living with MS and their health care teams,” committee chair Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Center, Winnipeg, said in a press release.

Commenting on the proposal, Tony Reder, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said the paper offers a “good framework for all trialists attempting to go beyond the usual markers.”
 

The time is right for reclassifying MS

The authors “have good reasons to propose the need for a new mechanism-driven framework to define MS progression,” wrote Takashi Yamamura, MD, PhD, director and chief of the Neuroimmunology Section and director of Multiple Sclerosis Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Tokyo, Japan, in an accompanying commentary.

Adopting biologically based definitions of MS progression will be challenging to implement, the authors admitted. The current subtype classification is woven into clinical care and research models and is the basis for regulatory approval of new therapeutics. Replacing it will take time and require external validation in the clinic and the lab.

“Although the goal is distant and many obstacles might arise (such as reaching a consensus between physicians, academia, and stakeholders), the time seems right to launch initiatives to reframe the classification of MS subtypes,” Dr. Yamamura added.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the Intramural Research Program of NINDS. Dr. Cohen reported personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI. Dr. Yamamura has received support from AMED-CREST, Novartis, and Chiome Bioscience, and speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Chugai, Alexion, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda.

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

An international panel of experts has proposed a new way to classify multiple sclerosis (MS) that would ultimately change the way patients are diagnosed and treated. The goal is to eventually move away from the current system, which classifies MS based on disease progression into distinct relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive, and primary progressive subtypes.

Members of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in Multiple Sclerosis, which developed the framework, note the new framework is based on underlying biology of disease and acknowledges the different trajectories of individual patients. “The categorization of patients into distinct subtypes or stages is artificial,” said framework coauthor Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic. “The rationale for the new framework was recent studies demonstrating that the biologic processes that underlie relapses and progression are present to varying degrees throughout the disease course, representing a continuum.”

The proposal was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

A more responsive system

Since the current MS classification, dubbed the Lublin-Reingold descriptors, was introduced, there have been calls for a different system that is more responsive to biological changes inherent in MS. The committee, which is jointly sponsored by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and the U.S. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, responded by clarifying clinical course descriptions published in 1996 and 2013. The proposed framework grew out of that process.

“One of the main points is the concept that patients don’t evolve into secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Cohen said. “The processes that underlie progression and the findings of proxy measures of progression are present from the earliest stages of the disease.”

In its report, the committee reviews current data on the pathophysiology of injury and compensatory mechanisms in MS, presenting findings that suggest disease progression is caused not by a single disease mechanism, but from a combination of several processes that vary from patient to patient.

Current research studies highlighted in the report include those focused on mechanisms of injury, such as acute and chronic inflammation, myelin loss, nerve fiber and neuron loss, and mitochondrial dysfunction. How the body responds to that injury is likely to determine how MS evolves in each patient, the committee wrote.

Studies point to a range of factors that influence how MS manifests and progresses, including patients’ age at onset, biological sex, genes, race, ethnicity, comorbid health conditions, health behaviors, therapies, and social and environmental exposures.
 

Potential for better treatments

Any new framework for classifying the disease in the future would enable the development and approval of more biologically based treatment approaches, Dr. Cohen said. “One anticipated advantage of the new framework is that treatments should be evaluated based on their efficacy on biologic processes, not in artificial categories of patients.”

Dr. Cohen and other committee members acknowledged that developing the framework is just a first step in what would likely be a long and complicated process. “This proposal is among many initiatives that the committee has supported over the years as part of its overarching aim to constantly improve, update, and enhance clinical trial design and inform clinical care delivery for people living with MS and their health care teams,” committee chair Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Center, Winnipeg, said in a press release.

Commenting on the proposal, Tony Reder, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said the paper offers a “good framework for all trialists attempting to go beyond the usual markers.”
 

The time is right for reclassifying MS

The authors “have good reasons to propose the need for a new mechanism-driven framework to define MS progression,” wrote Takashi Yamamura, MD, PhD, director and chief of the Neuroimmunology Section and director of Multiple Sclerosis Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Tokyo, Japan, in an accompanying commentary.

Adopting biologically based definitions of MS progression will be challenging to implement, the authors admitted. The current subtype classification is woven into clinical care and research models and is the basis for regulatory approval of new therapeutics. Replacing it will take time and require external validation in the clinic and the lab.

“Although the goal is distant and many obstacles might arise (such as reaching a consensus between physicians, academia, and stakeholders), the time seems right to launch initiatives to reframe the classification of MS subtypes,” Dr. Yamamura added.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the Intramural Research Program of NINDS. Dr. Cohen reported personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI. Dr. Yamamura has received support from AMED-CREST, Novartis, and Chiome Bioscience, and speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Chugai, Alexion, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda.

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

An international panel of experts has proposed a new way to classify multiple sclerosis (MS) that would ultimately change the way patients are diagnosed and treated. The goal is to eventually move away from the current system, which classifies MS based on disease progression into distinct relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive, and primary progressive subtypes.

Members of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in Multiple Sclerosis, which developed the framework, note the new framework is based on underlying biology of disease and acknowledges the different trajectories of individual patients. “The categorization of patients into distinct subtypes or stages is artificial,” said framework coauthor Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic. “The rationale for the new framework was recent studies demonstrating that the biologic processes that underlie relapses and progression are present to varying degrees throughout the disease course, representing a continuum.”

The proposal was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

A more responsive system

Since the current MS classification, dubbed the Lublin-Reingold descriptors, was introduced, there have been calls for a different system that is more responsive to biological changes inherent in MS. The committee, which is jointly sponsored by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and the U.S. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, responded by clarifying clinical course descriptions published in 1996 and 2013. The proposed framework grew out of that process.

“One of the main points is the concept that patients don’t evolve into secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Cohen said. “The processes that underlie progression and the findings of proxy measures of progression are present from the earliest stages of the disease.”

In its report, the committee reviews current data on the pathophysiology of injury and compensatory mechanisms in MS, presenting findings that suggest disease progression is caused not by a single disease mechanism, but from a combination of several processes that vary from patient to patient.

Current research studies highlighted in the report include those focused on mechanisms of injury, such as acute and chronic inflammation, myelin loss, nerve fiber and neuron loss, and mitochondrial dysfunction. How the body responds to that injury is likely to determine how MS evolves in each patient, the committee wrote.

Studies point to a range of factors that influence how MS manifests and progresses, including patients’ age at onset, biological sex, genes, race, ethnicity, comorbid health conditions, health behaviors, therapies, and social and environmental exposures.
 

Potential for better treatments

Any new framework for classifying the disease in the future would enable the development and approval of more biologically based treatment approaches, Dr. Cohen said. “One anticipated advantage of the new framework is that treatments should be evaluated based on their efficacy on biologic processes, not in artificial categories of patients.”

Dr. Cohen and other committee members acknowledged that developing the framework is just a first step in what would likely be a long and complicated process. “This proposal is among many initiatives that the committee has supported over the years as part of its overarching aim to constantly improve, update, and enhance clinical trial design and inform clinical care delivery for people living with MS and their health care teams,” committee chair Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Center, Winnipeg, said in a press release.

Commenting on the proposal, Tony Reder, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said the paper offers a “good framework for all trialists attempting to go beyond the usual markers.”
 

The time is right for reclassifying MS

The authors “have good reasons to propose the need for a new mechanism-driven framework to define MS progression,” wrote Takashi Yamamura, MD, PhD, director and chief of the Neuroimmunology Section and director of Multiple Sclerosis Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Tokyo, Japan, in an accompanying commentary.

Adopting biologically based definitions of MS progression will be challenging to implement, the authors admitted. The current subtype classification is woven into clinical care and research models and is the basis for regulatory approval of new therapeutics. Replacing it will take time and require external validation in the clinic and the lab.

“Although the goal is distant and many obstacles might arise (such as reaching a consensus between physicians, academia, and stakeholders), the time seems right to launch initiatives to reframe the classification of MS subtypes,” Dr. Yamamura added.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the Intramural Research Program of NINDS. Dr. Cohen reported personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI. Dr. Yamamura has received support from AMED-CREST, Novartis, and Chiome Bioscience, and speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Chugai, Alexion, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda.

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