Neurology Reviews

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid is associated with a greater than twofold increased risk for cancer in children of mothers with epilepsy, new data from a Scandinavian registry of more than 3 million pregnancies suggests.

The increased risk for cancer did not change after considering other factors that could explain the risk, such as use of antiseizure medication (ASM).

There was no increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy who used high-dose folic acid.

The results of this study “should be considered when the risks and benefits of folic acid supplements for women with epilepsy are discussed and before decisions about optimal dose recommendations are made,” the authors write.

“Although we believe that the association between prescription fills for high-dose folic acid and cancer in children born to mothers with epilepsy is robust, it is important to underline that these are the findings of one study only,” first author Håkon Magne Vegrim, MD, with University of Bergen (Norway) told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Women with epilepsy are advised to take high doses of folic acid before and during pregnancy owing to the risk for congenital malformations associated with ASM. Whether high-dose folic acid is associated with increases in the risk for childhood cancer is unknown.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed registry data from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden for 3.3 million children followed to a median age of 7.3 years.

Among the 27,784 children born to mothers with epilepsy, 5,934 (21.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 4.3 mg), with a cancer incidence rate of 42.5 per 100,000 person-years in 18 exposed cancer cases compared with 18.4 per 100,000 person-years in 29 unexposed cancer cases – yielding an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-6.3).

The absolute risk with exposure was 1.5% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.5%) in children of mothers with epilepsy compared with 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.1%) in children of mothers with epilepsy who were not exposed high-dose folic acid.

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid was not associated with an increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy.

In children of mothers without epilepsy, 46,646 (1.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 2.9 mg). There were 69 exposed and 4,927 unexposed cancer cases and an aHR for cancer of 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9-1.4) and absolute risk for cancer of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%).

There was no association between any specific ASM and childhood cancer.

“Removing mothers with any prescription fills for carbamazepine and valproate was not associated with the point estimate. Hence, these two ASMs were not important effect modifiers for the cancer association,” the investigators note in their study.

They also note that the most common childhood cancer types in children among mothers with epilepsy who took high-dose folic acid did not differ from the distribution in the general population.

“We need to get more knowledge about the potential mechanisms behind high-dose folic acid and childhood cancer, and it is important to identify the optimal dose to balance risks and benefits – and whether folic acid supplementation should be more individualized, based on factors like the serum level of folate and what type of antiseizure medication that is being used,” said Dr. Vegrim.
 

Practice changing?

Weighing in on the study, Elizabeth E. Gerard, MD, director of the Women with Epilepsy Program and associate professor of neurology at Northwestern University in Chicago, said, “There are known benefits of folic acid supplementation during pregnancy including a decreased risk of neural tube defects in the general population and improved neurodevelopmental outcomes in children born to mothers with and without epilepsy.”

“However, despite some expert guidelines recommending high-dose folic acid supplementation, there is a lack of certainty surrounding the ‘just right’ dose for patients with epilepsy who may become pregnant,” said Dr. Gerard, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Gerard, a member of the American Epilepsy Society, noted that other epidemiologic studies of folic acid supplementation and cancer have had “contradictory results, thus further research on this association will be needed. Additionally, differences in maternal/fetal folate metabolism and blood levels may be an important factor to study in the future.

“That said, this study definitely should cause us to pause and reevaluate the common practice of high-dose folic acid supplementation for patients with epilepsy who are considering pregnancy,” said Dr. Gerard.

The study was supported by the NordForsk Nordic Program on Health and Welfare. Dr. Vegrim and Dr. Gerard report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid is associated with a greater than twofold increased risk for cancer in children of mothers with epilepsy, new data from a Scandinavian registry of more than 3 million pregnancies suggests.

The increased risk for cancer did not change after considering other factors that could explain the risk, such as use of antiseizure medication (ASM).

There was no increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy who used high-dose folic acid.

The results of this study “should be considered when the risks and benefits of folic acid supplements for women with epilepsy are discussed and before decisions about optimal dose recommendations are made,” the authors write.

“Although we believe that the association between prescription fills for high-dose folic acid and cancer in children born to mothers with epilepsy is robust, it is important to underline that these are the findings of one study only,” first author Håkon Magne Vegrim, MD, with University of Bergen (Norway) told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Women with epilepsy are advised to take high doses of folic acid before and during pregnancy owing to the risk for congenital malformations associated with ASM. Whether high-dose folic acid is associated with increases in the risk for childhood cancer is unknown.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed registry data from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden for 3.3 million children followed to a median age of 7.3 years.

Among the 27,784 children born to mothers with epilepsy, 5,934 (21.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 4.3 mg), with a cancer incidence rate of 42.5 per 100,000 person-years in 18 exposed cancer cases compared with 18.4 per 100,000 person-years in 29 unexposed cancer cases – yielding an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-6.3).

The absolute risk with exposure was 1.5% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.5%) in children of mothers with epilepsy compared with 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.1%) in children of mothers with epilepsy who were not exposed high-dose folic acid.

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid was not associated with an increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy.

In children of mothers without epilepsy, 46,646 (1.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 2.9 mg). There were 69 exposed and 4,927 unexposed cancer cases and an aHR for cancer of 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9-1.4) and absolute risk for cancer of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%).

There was no association between any specific ASM and childhood cancer.

“Removing mothers with any prescription fills for carbamazepine and valproate was not associated with the point estimate. Hence, these two ASMs were not important effect modifiers for the cancer association,” the investigators note in their study.

They also note that the most common childhood cancer types in children among mothers with epilepsy who took high-dose folic acid did not differ from the distribution in the general population.

“We need to get more knowledge about the potential mechanisms behind high-dose folic acid and childhood cancer, and it is important to identify the optimal dose to balance risks and benefits – and whether folic acid supplementation should be more individualized, based on factors like the serum level of folate and what type of antiseizure medication that is being used,” said Dr. Vegrim.
 

Practice changing?

Weighing in on the study, Elizabeth E. Gerard, MD, director of the Women with Epilepsy Program and associate professor of neurology at Northwestern University in Chicago, said, “There are known benefits of folic acid supplementation during pregnancy including a decreased risk of neural tube defects in the general population and improved neurodevelopmental outcomes in children born to mothers with and without epilepsy.”

“However, despite some expert guidelines recommending high-dose folic acid supplementation, there is a lack of certainty surrounding the ‘just right’ dose for patients with epilepsy who may become pregnant,” said Dr. Gerard, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Gerard, a member of the American Epilepsy Society, noted that other epidemiologic studies of folic acid supplementation and cancer have had “contradictory results, thus further research on this association will be needed. Additionally, differences in maternal/fetal folate metabolism and blood levels may be an important factor to study in the future.

“That said, this study definitely should cause us to pause and reevaluate the common practice of high-dose folic acid supplementation for patients with epilepsy who are considering pregnancy,” said Dr. Gerard.

The study was supported by the NordForsk Nordic Program on Health and Welfare. Dr. Vegrim and Dr. Gerard report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid is associated with a greater than twofold increased risk for cancer in children of mothers with epilepsy, new data from a Scandinavian registry of more than 3 million pregnancies suggests.

The increased risk for cancer did not change after considering other factors that could explain the risk, such as use of antiseizure medication (ASM).

There was no increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy who used high-dose folic acid.

The results of this study “should be considered when the risks and benefits of folic acid supplements for women with epilepsy are discussed and before decisions about optimal dose recommendations are made,” the authors write.

“Although we believe that the association between prescription fills for high-dose folic acid and cancer in children born to mothers with epilepsy is robust, it is important to underline that these are the findings of one study only,” first author Håkon Magne Vegrim, MD, with University of Bergen (Norway) told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Women with epilepsy are advised to take high doses of folic acid before and during pregnancy owing to the risk for congenital malformations associated with ASM. Whether high-dose folic acid is associated with increases in the risk for childhood cancer is unknown.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed registry data from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden for 3.3 million children followed to a median age of 7.3 years.

Among the 27,784 children born to mothers with epilepsy, 5,934 (21.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 4.3 mg), with a cancer incidence rate of 42.5 per 100,000 person-years in 18 exposed cancer cases compared with 18.4 per 100,000 person-years in 29 unexposed cancer cases – yielding an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-6.3).

The absolute risk with exposure was 1.5% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.5%) in children of mothers with epilepsy compared with 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.1%) in children of mothers with epilepsy who were not exposed high-dose folic acid.

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid was not associated with an increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy.

In children of mothers without epilepsy, 46,646 (1.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 2.9 mg). There were 69 exposed and 4,927 unexposed cancer cases and an aHR for cancer of 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9-1.4) and absolute risk for cancer of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%).

There was no association between any specific ASM and childhood cancer.

“Removing mothers with any prescription fills for carbamazepine and valproate was not associated with the point estimate. Hence, these two ASMs were not important effect modifiers for the cancer association,” the investigators note in their study.

They also note that the most common childhood cancer types in children among mothers with epilepsy who took high-dose folic acid did not differ from the distribution in the general population.

“We need to get more knowledge about the potential mechanisms behind high-dose folic acid and childhood cancer, and it is important to identify the optimal dose to balance risks and benefits – and whether folic acid supplementation should be more individualized, based on factors like the serum level of folate and what type of antiseizure medication that is being used,” said Dr. Vegrim.
 

Practice changing?

Weighing in on the study, Elizabeth E. Gerard, MD, director of the Women with Epilepsy Program and associate professor of neurology at Northwestern University in Chicago, said, “There are known benefits of folic acid supplementation during pregnancy including a decreased risk of neural tube defects in the general population and improved neurodevelopmental outcomes in children born to mothers with and without epilepsy.”

“However, despite some expert guidelines recommending high-dose folic acid supplementation, there is a lack of certainty surrounding the ‘just right’ dose for patients with epilepsy who may become pregnant,” said Dr. Gerard, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Gerard, a member of the American Epilepsy Society, noted that other epidemiologic studies of folic acid supplementation and cancer have had “contradictory results, thus further research on this association will be needed. Additionally, differences in maternal/fetal folate metabolism and blood levels may be an important factor to study in the future.

“That said, this study definitely should cause us to pause and reevaluate the common practice of high-dose folic acid supplementation for patients with epilepsy who are considering pregnancy,” said Dr. Gerard.

The study was supported by the NordForsk Nordic Program on Health and Welfare. Dr. Vegrim and Dr. Gerard report no relevant financial relationships.

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

I hear other doctors talk about online reviews, both good and bad.

I recently read a piece where a practice gave doctors a bonus for getting 5-star reviews, though it doesn’t say if they were penalized for getting bad reviews. I assume the latter docs got a good “talking to” by someone in administration, or marketing, or both.

I get my share of them, too, both good and bad, scattered across at least a dozen sites that profess to offer accurate ratings.

I tend to ignore all of them.

Bad ratings mean nothing. They might be reasonable. They can also be from patients whom I fired for noncompliance, or from patients I refused to give an early narcotic refill to. They can also be from people who aren’t patients, such as a neighbor angry at the way I voted at a home owners association meeting, or a person who never saw me but was upset because I don’t take their insurance, or someone at the hospital whom I had to hang up on after being put on hold for 10 minutes.

Good reviews also don’t mean much, either. They might be from patients. They could also be from well-meaning family and friends. Or the waiter I left an extra-large tip for the other night.

One of my 1-star reviews even goes on to describe me in glowing terms (the lady called my office to apologize, saying the site confused her).

There’s also a whole cottage industry around this: Like restaurants, you can pay people to give you good reviews. They’re on Craig’s list and other sites. Some are freelancers. Others are actually well-organized companies, offering to give you X number of good reviews per month for a regular fee. I see ads for the latter online, usually describing themselves as “reputation recovery services.”

There was even a recent post on Sermo about this. A doctor noted he’d gotten a string of bad reviews from nonpatients, and shortly afterward was contacted by a reputation recovery service to help. He wondered if the crappy reviews were intentionally written by that business before they called him. He also questioned if it was an unspoken blackmail tactic – pay us or we’ll write more bad reviews.

Unlike a restaurant, we can’t respond because of patient confidentiality. Unless it’s something meaninglessly generic like “thank you” or “sorry you had a bad experience.”

A friend of mine (not in medicine) said that picking your doctor from online reviews is like selecting a wine recommended by a guy who lives at the train yard.

While there are pros and cons to the whole online review thing, in medicine there are mostly cons. Many reviews are anonymous, with no way to trace them. Unless details are provided, you don’t know if the reviewer is really a patient (or even a human in this bot era). Neither does the general public, reading them and presumably making decisions about who to see.

Like many things about the Internet, online reviews are the wild west. There are minimal (if any) rules, no law enforcement, and no one knows who the good guys and bad guys really are.

And there’s nothing we can do about it, either.

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

I hear other doctors talk about online reviews, both good and bad.

I recently read a piece where a practice gave doctors a bonus for getting 5-star reviews, though it doesn’t say if they were penalized for getting bad reviews. I assume the latter docs got a good “talking to” by someone in administration, or marketing, or both.

I get my share of them, too, both good and bad, scattered across at least a dozen sites that profess to offer accurate ratings.

I tend to ignore all of them.

Bad ratings mean nothing. They might be reasonable. They can also be from patients whom I fired for noncompliance, or from patients I refused to give an early narcotic refill to. They can also be from people who aren’t patients, such as a neighbor angry at the way I voted at a home owners association meeting, or a person who never saw me but was upset because I don’t take their insurance, or someone at the hospital whom I had to hang up on after being put on hold for 10 minutes.

Good reviews also don’t mean much, either. They might be from patients. They could also be from well-meaning family and friends. Or the waiter I left an extra-large tip for the other night.

One of my 1-star reviews even goes on to describe me in glowing terms (the lady called my office to apologize, saying the site confused her).

There’s also a whole cottage industry around this: Like restaurants, you can pay people to give you good reviews. They’re on Craig’s list and other sites. Some are freelancers. Others are actually well-organized companies, offering to give you X number of good reviews per month for a regular fee. I see ads for the latter online, usually describing themselves as “reputation recovery services.”

There was even a recent post on Sermo about this. A doctor noted he’d gotten a string of bad reviews from nonpatients, and shortly afterward was contacted by a reputation recovery service to help. He wondered if the crappy reviews were intentionally written by that business before they called him. He also questioned if it was an unspoken blackmail tactic – pay us or we’ll write more bad reviews.

Unlike a restaurant, we can’t respond because of patient confidentiality. Unless it’s something meaninglessly generic like “thank you” or “sorry you had a bad experience.”

A friend of mine (not in medicine) said that picking your doctor from online reviews is like selecting a wine recommended by a guy who lives at the train yard.

While there are pros and cons to the whole online review thing, in medicine there are mostly cons. Many reviews are anonymous, with no way to trace them. Unless details are provided, you don’t know if the reviewer is really a patient (or even a human in this bot era). Neither does the general public, reading them and presumably making decisions about who to see.

Like many things about the Internet, online reviews are the wild west. There are minimal (if any) rules, no law enforcement, and no one knows who the good guys and bad guys really are.

And there’s nothing we can do about it, either.

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

I hear other doctors talk about online reviews, both good and bad.

I recently read a piece where a practice gave doctors a bonus for getting 5-star reviews, though it doesn’t say if they were penalized for getting bad reviews. I assume the latter docs got a good “talking to” by someone in administration, or marketing, or both.

I get my share of them, too, both good and bad, scattered across at least a dozen sites that profess to offer accurate ratings.

I tend to ignore all of them.

Bad ratings mean nothing. They might be reasonable. They can also be from patients whom I fired for noncompliance, or from patients I refused to give an early narcotic refill to. They can also be from people who aren’t patients, such as a neighbor angry at the way I voted at a home owners association meeting, or a person who never saw me but was upset because I don’t take their insurance, or someone at the hospital whom I had to hang up on after being put on hold for 10 minutes.

Good reviews also don’t mean much, either. They might be from patients. They could also be from well-meaning family and friends. Or the waiter I left an extra-large tip for the other night.

One of my 1-star reviews even goes on to describe me in glowing terms (the lady called my office to apologize, saying the site confused her).

There’s also a whole cottage industry around this: Like restaurants, you can pay people to give you good reviews. They’re on Craig’s list and other sites. Some are freelancers. Others are actually well-organized companies, offering to give you X number of good reviews per month for a regular fee. I see ads for the latter online, usually describing themselves as “reputation recovery services.”

There was even a recent post on Sermo about this. A doctor noted he’d gotten a string of bad reviews from nonpatients, and shortly afterward was contacted by a reputation recovery service to help. He wondered if the crappy reviews were intentionally written by that business before they called him. He also questioned if it was an unspoken blackmail tactic – pay us or we’ll write more bad reviews.

Unlike a restaurant, we can’t respond because of patient confidentiality. Unless it’s something meaninglessly generic like “thank you” or “sorry you had a bad experience.”

A friend of mine (not in medicine) said that picking your doctor from online reviews is like selecting a wine recommended by a guy who lives at the train yard.

While there are pros and cons to the whole online review thing, in medicine there are mostly cons. Many reviews are anonymous, with no way to trace them. Unless details are provided, you don’t know if the reviewer is really a patient (or even a human in this bot era). Neither does the general public, reading them and presumably making decisions about who to see.

Like many things about the Internet, online reviews are the wild west. There are minimal (if any) rules, no law enforcement, and no one knows who the good guys and bad guys really are.

And there’s nothing we can do about it, either.

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

Black and Hispanic adults with spina bifida or cerebral palsy are less likely to attend wellness visits than are White adults with the same pediatric-onset disabilities, a new study finds.

Black adults also had lower odds of having a bone density screening, compared with White adults. Plus, comorbidities were highest among the Black patients, according to the paper, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Elham Mahmoudi, PhD, and her coauthors examined private insurance claims from 11,635 patients with cerebral palsy (CP) or spina bifida over ten years from 2007 to 2017. The researchers analyzed comorbidities and compared the rates of different psychological, cardiometabolic, and musculoskeletal conditions among these patients.

Only 23% of Hispanic participants and 18% of Black participants attended an annual wellness visit, compared with 32% of the White participants.

Only 1% of Black and 2% of White participants received any bone density screening (odds ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.95), a service that is essential for catching a patient’s potential risk for osteoporosis and fractures.

According to the researchers, patients accessed services such as bone density scans, cholesterol assessments, diabetes screenings, and annual wellness visits less than recommended for people with those chronic conditions.

“People with spina bifida and cerebral palsy have complex care needs. We know through our work that chronic conditions are much higher among them compared with adults without disabilities,” Dr. Mahmoudi, associate professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “I was surprised to see even with private insurance, the rate of using preventative services is so low among White people and minority populations.”
 

Comorbidities highest in Black participants

Black adults had the highest comorbidity score of 2.5, and Hispanic adults had the lowest comorbidity score of 1.8. For White adults in the study, the comorbidity score was 2.0.

Osteoporosis, a common concern for people with spina bifida or cerebral palsy, was detected in around 4% of all participants. Osteoarthritis was detected in 13.38% of Black participants, versus 8.53% of Hispanic participants and 11.09% of White participants.

Diabetes and hypertension were more common among Black participants than among Hispanic and White participants. The percentages of Black patients with hypertension and diabetes were 16.5% and 39.89%, respectively. Among the Hispanic and White adults, the percentages with hypertension were 22.3% and 28.2%, respectively, according to the paper.
 

Disparities in access

Jamil Paden, racial and health equity manager at the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, said getting access to literature, transportation, tables, chairs, weigh scales, and imaging equipment that accommodate the needs of people with disabilities are some of the biggest challenges for people with disabilities who are trying to receive care.

“It’s not a one size fits all, we have to recognize that if someone doesn’t see themselves in a particular place, then it makes it more challenging for them to feel comfortable speaking up and saying things about their health, which would prevent a person from saying something early on,” Mr. Paden said in an interview. “That particular issue will continue to grow and become more of a health risk, or health challenge down the line.”

Mr. Paden emphasized intersections between class, race, and circumstances which can, together, make health care less equitable for people with disabilities, especially in underserved communities and communities of color. He urged health care providers to distance their practices from a “one size fits all” approach to treatment and engage in their patients’ individual lives and communities.

“It’s not enough to just say, Hey, you have a disability. So let me treat your disability ... You have to recognize that although a patient may have a dire diagnosis, they also are a person of color, and they have to navigate different aspects of life from their counterparts,” he said.

Dr. Mahmoudi said patient and provider understanding of the disability is often lacking. She recommended advocating for patients, noting that giving both patients and providers the tools to further educate themselves and apply that to their regular visits is a good first step.

“Just having access to a facility doesn’t mean they will get the services they need. Preventative services that are recommended for people with disabilities differ from the general population. Providers should be educated about that and the patient needs to be educated about that,” she added.

“Patients who do not approach clinicians get lost in the system. Maybe many facilities are not disability friendly, or they need health literacy. If they don’t know they are at risk for osteoporosis, for example, then they won’t ask,” Dr. Mahmoudi said.

The study was funded by The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Dr. Mahmoudi and Mr. Paden report no relevant financial relationships.

Black and Hispanic adults with spina bifida or cerebral palsy are less likely to attend wellness visits than are White adults with the same pediatric-onset disabilities, a new study finds.

Black adults also had lower odds of having a bone density screening, compared with White adults. Plus, comorbidities were highest among the Black patients, according to the paper, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Elham Mahmoudi, PhD, and her coauthors examined private insurance claims from 11,635 patients with cerebral palsy (CP) or spina bifida over ten years from 2007 to 2017. The researchers analyzed comorbidities and compared the rates of different psychological, cardiometabolic, and musculoskeletal conditions among these patients.

Only 23% of Hispanic participants and 18% of Black participants attended an annual wellness visit, compared with 32% of the White participants.

Only 1% of Black and 2% of White participants received any bone density screening (odds ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.95), a service that is essential for catching a patient’s potential risk for osteoporosis and fractures.

According to the researchers, patients accessed services such as bone density scans, cholesterol assessments, diabetes screenings, and annual wellness visits less than recommended for people with those chronic conditions.

“People with spina bifida and cerebral palsy have complex care needs. We know through our work that chronic conditions are much higher among them compared with adults without disabilities,” Dr. Mahmoudi, associate professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “I was surprised to see even with private insurance, the rate of using preventative services is so low among White people and minority populations.”
 

Comorbidities highest in Black participants

Black adults had the highest comorbidity score of 2.5, and Hispanic adults had the lowest comorbidity score of 1.8. For White adults in the study, the comorbidity score was 2.0.

Osteoporosis, a common concern for people with spina bifida or cerebral palsy, was detected in around 4% of all participants. Osteoarthritis was detected in 13.38% of Black participants, versus 8.53% of Hispanic participants and 11.09% of White participants.

Diabetes and hypertension were more common among Black participants than among Hispanic and White participants. The percentages of Black patients with hypertension and diabetes were 16.5% and 39.89%, respectively. Among the Hispanic and White adults, the percentages with hypertension were 22.3% and 28.2%, respectively, according to the paper.
 

Disparities in access

Jamil Paden, racial and health equity manager at the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, said getting access to literature, transportation, tables, chairs, weigh scales, and imaging equipment that accommodate the needs of people with disabilities are some of the biggest challenges for people with disabilities who are trying to receive care.

“It’s not a one size fits all, we have to recognize that if someone doesn’t see themselves in a particular place, then it makes it more challenging for them to feel comfortable speaking up and saying things about their health, which would prevent a person from saying something early on,” Mr. Paden said in an interview. “That particular issue will continue to grow and become more of a health risk, or health challenge down the line.”

Mr. Paden emphasized intersections between class, race, and circumstances which can, together, make health care less equitable for people with disabilities, especially in underserved communities and communities of color. He urged health care providers to distance their practices from a “one size fits all” approach to treatment and engage in their patients’ individual lives and communities.

“It’s not enough to just say, Hey, you have a disability. So let me treat your disability ... You have to recognize that although a patient may have a dire diagnosis, they also are a person of color, and they have to navigate different aspects of life from their counterparts,” he said.

Dr. Mahmoudi said patient and provider understanding of the disability is often lacking. She recommended advocating for patients, noting that giving both patients and providers the tools to further educate themselves and apply that to their regular visits is a good first step.

“Just having access to a facility doesn’t mean they will get the services they need. Preventative services that are recommended for people with disabilities differ from the general population. Providers should be educated about that and the patient needs to be educated about that,” she added.

“Patients who do not approach clinicians get lost in the system. Maybe many facilities are not disability friendly, or they need health literacy. If they don’t know they are at risk for osteoporosis, for example, then they won’t ask,” Dr. Mahmoudi said.

The study was funded by The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Dr. Mahmoudi and Mr. Paden report no relevant financial relationships.

Black and Hispanic adults with spina bifida or cerebral palsy are less likely to attend wellness visits than are White adults with the same pediatric-onset disabilities, a new study finds.

Black adults also had lower odds of having a bone density screening, compared with White adults. Plus, comorbidities were highest among the Black patients, according to the paper, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Elham Mahmoudi, PhD, and her coauthors examined private insurance claims from 11,635 patients with cerebral palsy (CP) or spina bifida over ten years from 2007 to 2017. The researchers analyzed comorbidities and compared the rates of different psychological, cardiometabolic, and musculoskeletal conditions among these patients.

Only 23% of Hispanic participants and 18% of Black participants attended an annual wellness visit, compared with 32% of the White participants.

Only 1% of Black and 2% of White participants received any bone density screening (odds ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.95), a service that is essential for catching a patient’s potential risk for osteoporosis and fractures.

According to the researchers, patients accessed services such as bone density scans, cholesterol assessments, diabetes screenings, and annual wellness visits less than recommended for people with those chronic conditions.

“People with spina bifida and cerebral palsy have complex care needs. We know through our work that chronic conditions are much higher among them compared with adults without disabilities,” Dr. Mahmoudi, associate professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “I was surprised to see even with private insurance, the rate of using preventative services is so low among White people and minority populations.”
 

Comorbidities highest in Black participants

Black adults had the highest comorbidity score of 2.5, and Hispanic adults had the lowest comorbidity score of 1.8. For White adults in the study, the comorbidity score was 2.0.

Osteoporosis, a common concern for people with spina bifida or cerebral palsy, was detected in around 4% of all participants. Osteoarthritis was detected in 13.38% of Black participants, versus 8.53% of Hispanic participants and 11.09% of White participants.

Diabetes and hypertension were more common among Black participants than among Hispanic and White participants. The percentages of Black patients with hypertension and diabetes were 16.5% and 39.89%, respectively. Among the Hispanic and White adults, the percentages with hypertension were 22.3% and 28.2%, respectively, according to the paper.
 

Disparities in access

Jamil Paden, racial and health equity manager at the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, said getting access to literature, transportation, tables, chairs, weigh scales, and imaging equipment that accommodate the needs of people with disabilities are some of the biggest challenges for people with disabilities who are trying to receive care.

“It’s not a one size fits all, we have to recognize that if someone doesn’t see themselves in a particular place, then it makes it more challenging for them to feel comfortable speaking up and saying things about their health, which would prevent a person from saying something early on,” Mr. Paden said in an interview. “That particular issue will continue to grow and become more of a health risk, or health challenge down the line.”

Mr. Paden emphasized intersections between class, race, and circumstances which can, together, make health care less equitable for people with disabilities, especially in underserved communities and communities of color. He urged health care providers to distance their practices from a “one size fits all” approach to treatment and engage in their patients’ individual lives and communities.

“It’s not enough to just say, Hey, you have a disability. So let me treat your disability ... You have to recognize that although a patient may have a dire diagnosis, they also are a person of color, and they have to navigate different aspects of life from their counterparts,” he said.

Dr. Mahmoudi said patient and provider understanding of the disability is often lacking. She recommended advocating for patients, noting that giving both patients and providers the tools to further educate themselves and apply that to their regular visits is a good first step.

“Just having access to a facility doesn’t mean they will get the services they need. Preventative services that are recommended for people with disabilities differ from the general population. Providers should be educated about that and the patient needs to be educated about that,” she added.

“Patients who do not approach clinicians get lost in the system. Maybe many facilities are not disability friendly, or they need health literacy. If they don’t know they are at risk for osteoporosis, for example, then they won’t ask,” Dr. Mahmoudi said.

The study was funded by The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Dr. Mahmoudi and Mr. Paden report no relevant financial relationships.

Employed physicians are often torn. Many relish the steady salary and ability to focus on being a physician rather than handle administrative duties, but they bemoan their employers’ rules and their lack of input into key decisions. And thus, many doctors are leaving employment to start a private practice. For this article, seven physicians talked about why they chose private practice.

Leaving employment is ‘an invigorating time’

On Sept. 9, Aaron Przybysz, MD, gave notice to his employer, a large academic medical center in Southern California, that he would be leaving to start a private practice.

“It’s an invigorating time,” said Dr. Przybysz, 41, an anesthesiologist and pain management physician who plans to open his new pain management practice on Dec. 1 in Orange County. He has picked out the space he will rent but has not yet hired his staff.

“I’ve been serious about doing this for at least a year,” Dr. Przybysz said. “What held me back is the concern that my business could fail. But even if that happens, what’s the worst that could occur? I’d have to find a new job as an employed physician.

“I feel comfortable with the business side of medicine,” he said. His father was an executive in the automotive industry and his father-in-law is an entrepreneur in construction and housing.

“One of the biggest reasons for moving to private practice is making sure I don’t miss my kids’ activities,” he said, referring to his children, ages 9 and 7. Recently, he said, “I had to spend the whole weekend on call in the hospital. I came home and had to sleep most of the next day.

“I love the people that I have been working with and I’ve learned and matured as a physician during that time,” he said. “But it was time to move on.”
 

The desire to be in charge

In Medscape’s recent Employed Physicians Report, doctors said they enjoy the steady salary and ability to focus on patients, which comes with being employed.

Other physicians feel differently. John Machata, MD, a solo family physician in the village of Wickford, R.I., 20 miles south of Providence, chose private practice because “I have total control,” he said. “I make decisions that I couldn’t have made as an employed physician, such as closing my practice to new patients.”

He can also decide on his work hours. “I see patients for 35 hours, 4 days a week and then I have a 3-day weekend.” In a large organization, “the focus is on revenue,” said Dr. Machata. “They’re always measuring your productivity. If you are slower, you won’t make enough money for them.”

When he worked for a large group practice about a decade ago, “I felt burnt out every day,” he said. “I had to see patients every 10 minutes, with no breaks for anything in between. Within a month I was devising my exit strategy.”

Dr. Machata maintains long appointments – 25 minutes for a typical follow-up visit and 55 minutes for an annual check-in – but he still earns above the state average for primary care doctors. “I have no nurse or front-office staff, which means I can save $125,000 to $150,000 a year,” he said.  

In 2018, for the first time, employed physicians outnumbered self-employed physicians, according to a survey by the American Medical Association (AMA). By the end of 2021, more than half (52.1%) of U.S. physicians were employed by hospitals or health systems.

Yet the negatives of employment have begun to turn some physicians back toward private practice. Many physicians who were employed by a hospital or a large practice have become disillusioned and want to return to private practice.
 

His practice is the ‘best of both worlds’

Adam Bruggeman, MD, a 42-year-old spine surgeon who is CEO of Texas Spine Care Center, a solo practice in San Antonio, said he has “the best of both worlds.”

“As a solo physician, I have total control over how I practice,” he said. “But I also have access to value-based contracts and the data and staff needed to implement them.

“You need a lot of administrative overhead to take on these contracts, which a private practice normally doesn’t have,” he said. But Dr. Bruggeman gets this work done through a clinically integrated network (CIN) of private practices, Spinalytics of Texas, where he is chief medical director.

The CIN represents 150 musculoskeletal care providers and provides access to bundled networks, such as a total joint bundle with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, as well as fee-for-service contracts.

He is also building a new ambulatory surgery center (ASC) that is scheduled to open in January. There, he plans to perform total joint and spine surgeries at a lower cost than at the hospital, which will be useful for value-based contracts through the CIN.

Dr. Bruggeman said it would be hard to run his private practice without the CIN and the ASC. “Private practice has changed,” he said. “The days of hanging up a shingle and immediately being successful are gone. You’ve got to be smart about business to run a successful practice.”
 

He started his practice while the pandemic raged

Joe Greene, MD, 42, an orthopedic surgeon in Louisville, Ky., had to open his hip and knee surgery practice when the COVID-19 pandemic was raging a year and a half ago, but that did not stop him.

“Federal financing of small bank loans completely stopped, but that only amounted to a small delay because our bank took care of it,” said Dr. Greene, who codirects his new practice with another orthopedic surgeon.

Even during the pandemic, “we could be very nimble,” he said. “For instance, when we want to institute new technology or a new patient-centric educational platform, we can do it immediately rather than going through an approval process at a health system.”

The partners, both ex-employees of a health system, also have an ASC, which allows them better control over their surgery schedules. “At a hospital, you can be bumped from the schedule by other surgeries, and you can’t be as productive as an ASC in the number of surgeries per day,” he said.

Dr. Greene attributes the practice’s success to long and careful planning. “We had to learn about business,” he said. “We did 3 to 4 years of research to find the right business model and implement it.”

As they were considering the new practice, a survey of patients showed that more than 75% chose them by word-of-mouth – because they specialize in complex and revision surgeries – rather than through referrals within their health system. This meant they could survive without their employer.

Planning for the new practice took up all his free time, but now he can relax and spend time with his three daughters, ages 12, 10, and 8. Dr. Greene currently coaches two of their teams. “We’re loving it,” he said.
 

Colleagues want to know how he did it

Clinton Sheets, MD, an ophthalmologist in Hudson and Clearwater, Fla., went solo in 2019 after being in a group practice for 11 years. Since he opened up, “I get phone calls from colleagues all the time, asking me about how I did it,” he said. “At least two of them followed in my footsteps.

“I tell them it’s very doable,” he said. “If you have the motivation, you can do it. Depending on your competence, you can outsource as much or as little as you want. Some management companies can do almost all of the nonclinical work for you.

“Smaller practices can streamline processes because they have a flatter organizational structure and have fewer issues with administrative bloat than larger organizations,” he said.

“Technology hinders and helps a private practice,” he said. On the one hand, he had to buy a lot of expensive equipment that otherwise would be shared by a group of doctors. On the other hand, using the cloud makes it possible to easily store practice management software and the electronic health record. 
 

He’s opening a private practice while staying employed

In December, Dev Basu, MD, a hospitalist in Baltimore, plans to start his own private practice, seeing patients in skilled nursing homes, while still working as a nocturnist in a large health care system.  

He said his employer has been supportive of his plans. “My work will not directly compete with them and it will benefit them by serving patients discharged from their hospitals,” said Dr. Basu, 38. He added, however, that he will be allowed to work only at certain facilities, and these will be subject to annual review.

“The financial risk of the new practice is low, because I haven’t had to invest much,” he said. “I won’t have a staff or an office.” He plans to maintain his full schedule as an employee, working 12 nights a month, because it will give him a great deal of time to do the new work.

“I also have no particular interest in running a business,” he said. “I come from a family of doctors, professors, and teachers who never ran a business. But I’m willing to learn so that I can practice medicine the way I want to.

“The ability to set my own schedule and deal with patients in the way I think is best is very important to me,” he said.
 

Private practitioners don’t have to face ‘moral distress’

One thing private practitioners typically don’t have to contend with is “moral distress,” which occurs when you have to follow institutional concerns on how much time you can spend with a patient or on the need to keep referrals in-house, according to Marie T. Brown, MD.

Dr. Brown is an internist who ran a small private practice in Oak Park, Ill., and is now the physician lead for the American Medical Association’s STEPS Forward program, which provides strategies on how to improve a medical practice.

“In my private practice, I could control the time I spent with each patient,” she said. “I also had control over my schedule. If I didn’t have the time, I just took a lower income, but that was okay.”

Dr. Brown said it is a myth that employment offers a better work-life balance. “Young physicians who take employment for this reason may find that they’re not allowed to drop off and pick up their children from school at a certain time. But you can do that in a private practice.”

She said it’s not that hard to run a practice. “Young physicians don’t think they could run a practice because they don’t have any business skills,” she said. “Yes, you do need some management skills, and you have to devote time to management. But you don’t need to have special expertise. You can outsource much of the work.”
 

A growing trend?

David J. Zetter, a consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa., who helps doctors set up private practices, sees more interest in this in the past 5 years. “The overwhelming trend used to be private practices being bought up by hospitals and other entities,” he said. “Now we’re seeing the pendulum swing in the opposite direction.

“Generally, these doctors are fed up with being employed at a large organization,” he added. “Recently I got a call from a doctor who had never thought about running his own business, but he’s had it with being an employed physician.”

Switching to private practice is scary for a lot of them, but the alternative is worse. “A podiatrist I’m working with tells me she is scared to death about setting up a private practice, but she’s doing it because she doesn’t want to be employed anymore,” Mr. Zetter said.

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

Employed physicians are often torn. Many relish the steady salary and ability to focus on being a physician rather than handle administrative duties, but they bemoan their employers’ rules and their lack of input into key decisions. And thus, many doctors are leaving employment to start a private practice. For this article, seven physicians talked about why they chose private practice.

Leaving employment is ‘an invigorating time’

On Sept. 9, Aaron Przybysz, MD, gave notice to his employer, a large academic medical center in Southern California, that he would be leaving to start a private practice.

“It’s an invigorating time,” said Dr. Przybysz, 41, an anesthesiologist and pain management physician who plans to open his new pain management practice on Dec. 1 in Orange County. He has picked out the space he will rent but has not yet hired his staff.

“I’ve been serious about doing this for at least a year,” Dr. Przybysz said. “What held me back is the concern that my business could fail. But even if that happens, what’s the worst that could occur? I’d have to find a new job as an employed physician.

“I feel comfortable with the business side of medicine,” he said. His father was an executive in the automotive industry and his father-in-law is an entrepreneur in construction and housing.

“One of the biggest reasons for moving to private practice is making sure I don’t miss my kids’ activities,” he said, referring to his children, ages 9 and 7. Recently, he said, “I had to spend the whole weekend on call in the hospital. I came home and had to sleep most of the next day.

“I love the people that I have been working with and I’ve learned and matured as a physician during that time,” he said. “But it was time to move on.”
 

The desire to be in charge

In Medscape’s recent Employed Physicians Report, doctors said they enjoy the steady salary and ability to focus on patients, which comes with being employed.

Other physicians feel differently. John Machata, MD, a solo family physician in the village of Wickford, R.I., 20 miles south of Providence, chose private practice because “I have total control,” he said. “I make decisions that I couldn’t have made as an employed physician, such as closing my practice to new patients.”

He can also decide on his work hours. “I see patients for 35 hours, 4 days a week and then I have a 3-day weekend.” In a large organization, “the focus is on revenue,” said Dr. Machata. “They’re always measuring your productivity. If you are slower, you won’t make enough money for them.”

When he worked for a large group practice about a decade ago, “I felt burnt out every day,” he said. “I had to see patients every 10 minutes, with no breaks for anything in between. Within a month I was devising my exit strategy.”

Dr. Machata maintains long appointments – 25 minutes for a typical follow-up visit and 55 minutes for an annual check-in – but he still earns above the state average for primary care doctors. “I have no nurse or front-office staff, which means I can save $125,000 to $150,000 a year,” he said.  

In 2018, for the first time, employed physicians outnumbered self-employed physicians, according to a survey by the American Medical Association (AMA). By the end of 2021, more than half (52.1%) of U.S. physicians were employed by hospitals or health systems.

Yet the negatives of employment have begun to turn some physicians back toward private practice. Many physicians who were employed by a hospital or a large practice have become disillusioned and want to return to private practice.
 

His practice is the ‘best of both worlds’

Adam Bruggeman, MD, a 42-year-old spine surgeon who is CEO of Texas Spine Care Center, a solo practice in San Antonio, said he has “the best of both worlds.”

“As a solo physician, I have total control over how I practice,” he said. “But I also have access to value-based contracts and the data and staff needed to implement them.

“You need a lot of administrative overhead to take on these contracts, which a private practice normally doesn’t have,” he said. But Dr. Bruggeman gets this work done through a clinically integrated network (CIN) of private practices, Spinalytics of Texas, where he is chief medical director.

The CIN represents 150 musculoskeletal care providers and provides access to bundled networks, such as a total joint bundle with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, as well as fee-for-service contracts.

He is also building a new ambulatory surgery center (ASC) that is scheduled to open in January. There, he plans to perform total joint and spine surgeries at a lower cost than at the hospital, which will be useful for value-based contracts through the CIN.

Dr. Bruggeman said it would be hard to run his private practice without the CIN and the ASC. “Private practice has changed,” he said. “The days of hanging up a shingle and immediately being successful are gone. You’ve got to be smart about business to run a successful practice.”
 

He started his practice while the pandemic raged

Joe Greene, MD, 42, an orthopedic surgeon in Louisville, Ky., had to open his hip and knee surgery practice when the COVID-19 pandemic was raging a year and a half ago, but that did not stop him.

“Federal financing of small bank loans completely stopped, but that only amounted to a small delay because our bank took care of it,” said Dr. Greene, who codirects his new practice with another orthopedic surgeon.

Even during the pandemic, “we could be very nimble,” he said. “For instance, when we want to institute new technology or a new patient-centric educational platform, we can do it immediately rather than going through an approval process at a health system.”

The partners, both ex-employees of a health system, also have an ASC, which allows them better control over their surgery schedules. “At a hospital, you can be bumped from the schedule by other surgeries, and you can’t be as productive as an ASC in the number of surgeries per day,” he said.

Dr. Greene attributes the practice’s success to long and careful planning. “We had to learn about business,” he said. “We did 3 to 4 years of research to find the right business model and implement it.”

As they were considering the new practice, a survey of patients showed that more than 75% chose them by word-of-mouth – because they specialize in complex and revision surgeries – rather than through referrals within their health system. This meant they could survive without their employer.

Planning for the new practice took up all his free time, but now he can relax and spend time with his three daughters, ages 12, 10, and 8. Dr. Greene currently coaches two of their teams. “We’re loving it,” he said.
 

Colleagues want to know how he did it

Clinton Sheets, MD, an ophthalmologist in Hudson and Clearwater, Fla., went solo in 2019 after being in a group practice for 11 years. Since he opened up, “I get phone calls from colleagues all the time, asking me about how I did it,” he said. “At least two of them followed in my footsteps.

“I tell them it’s very doable,” he said. “If you have the motivation, you can do it. Depending on your competence, you can outsource as much or as little as you want. Some management companies can do almost all of the nonclinical work for you.

“Smaller practices can streamline processes because they have a flatter organizational structure and have fewer issues with administrative bloat than larger organizations,” he said.

“Technology hinders and helps a private practice,” he said. On the one hand, he had to buy a lot of expensive equipment that otherwise would be shared by a group of doctors. On the other hand, using the cloud makes it possible to easily store practice management software and the electronic health record. 
 

He’s opening a private practice while staying employed

In December, Dev Basu, MD, a hospitalist in Baltimore, plans to start his own private practice, seeing patients in skilled nursing homes, while still working as a nocturnist in a large health care system.  

He said his employer has been supportive of his plans. “My work will not directly compete with them and it will benefit them by serving patients discharged from their hospitals,” said Dr. Basu, 38. He added, however, that he will be allowed to work only at certain facilities, and these will be subject to annual review.

“The financial risk of the new practice is low, because I haven’t had to invest much,” he said. “I won’t have a staff or an office.” He plans to maintain his full schedule as an employee, working 12 nights a month, because it will give him a great deal of time to do the new work.

“I also have no particular interest in running a business,” he said. “I come from a family of doctors, professors, and teachers who never ran a business. But I’m willing to learn so that I can practice medicine the way I want to.

“The ability to set my own schedule and deal with patients in the way I think is best is very important to me,” he said.
 

Private practitioners don’t have to face ‘moral distress’

One thing private practitioners typically don’t have to contend with is “moral distress,” which occurs when you have to follow institutional concerns on how much time you can spend with a patient or on the need to keep referrals in-house, according to Marie T. Brown, MD.

Dr. Brown is an internist who ran a small private practice in Oak Park, Ill., and is now the physician lead for the American Medical Association’s STEPS Forward program, which provides strategies on how to improve a medical practice.

“In my private practice, I could control the time I spent with each patient,” she said. “I also had control over my schedule. If I didn’t have the time, I just took a lower income, but that was okay.”

Dr. Brown said it is a myth that employment offers a better work-life balance. “Young physicians who take employment for this reason may find that they’re not allowed to drop off and pick up their children from school at a certain time. But you can do that in a private practice.”

She said it’s not that hard to run a practice. “Young physicians don’t think they could run a practice because they don’t have any business skills,” she said. “Yes, you do need some management skills, and you have to devote time to management. But you don’t need to have special expertise. You can outsource much of the work.”
 

A growing trend?

David J. Zetter, a consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa., who helps doctors set up private practices, sees more interest in this in the past 5 years. “The overwhelming trend used to be private practices being bought up by hospitals and other entities,” he said. “Now we’re seeing the pendulum swing in the opposite direction.

“Generally, these doctors are fed up with being employed at a large organization,” he added. “Recently I got a call from a doctor who had never thought about running his own business, but he’s had it with being an employed physician.”

Switching to private practice is scary for a lot of them, but the alternative is worse. “A podiatrist I’m working with tells me she is scared to death about setting up a private practice, but she’s doing it because she doesn’t want to be employed anymore,” Mr. Zetter said.

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

Employed physicians are often torn. Many relish the steady salary and ability to focus on being a physician rather than handle administrative duties, but they bemoan their employers’ rules and their lack of input into key decisions. And thus, many doctors are leaving employment to start a private practice. For this article, seven physicians talked about why they chose private practice.

Leaving employment is ‘an invigorating time’

On Sept. 9, Aaron Przybysz, MD, gave notice to his employer, a large academic medical center in Southern California, that he would be leaving to start a private practice.

“It’s an invigorating time,” said Dr. Przybysz, 41, an anesthesiologist and pain management physician who plans to open his new pain management practice on Dec. 1 in Orange County. He has picked out the space he will rent but has not yet hired his staff.

“I’ve been serious about doing this for at least a year,” Dr. Przybysz said. “What held me back is the concern that my business could fail. But even if that happens, what’s the worst that could occur? I’d have to find a new job as an employed physician.

“I feel comfortable with the business side of medicine,” he said. His father was an executive in the automotive industry and his father-in-law is an entrepreneur in construction and housing.

“One of the biggest reasons for moving to private practice is making sure I don’t miss my kids’ activities,” he said, referring to his children, ages 9 and 7. Recently, he said, “I had to spend the whole weekend on call in the hospital. I came home and had to sleep most of the next day.

“I love the people that I have been working with and I’ve learned and matured as a physician during that time,” he said. “But it was time to move on.”
 

The desire to be in charge

In Medscape’s recent Employed Physicians Report, doctors said they enjoy the steady salary and ability to focus on patients, which comes with being employed.

Other physicians feel differently. John Machata, MD, a solo family physician in the village of Wickford, R.I., 20 miles south of Providence, chose private practice because “I have total control,” he said. “I make decisions that I couldn’t have made as an employed physician, such as closing my practice to new patients.”

He can also decide on his work hours. “I see patients for 35 hours, 4 days a week and then I have a 3-day weekend.” In a large organization, “the focus is on revenue,” said Dr. Machata. “They’re always measuring your productivity. If you are slower, you won’t make enough money for them.”

When he worked for a large group practice about a decade ago, “I felt burnt out every day,” he said. “I had to see patients every 10 minutes, with no breaks for anything in between. Within a month I was devising my exit strategy.”

Dr. Machata maintains long appointments – 25 minutes for a typical follow-up visit and 55 minutes for an annual check-in – but he still earns above the state average for primary care doctors. “I have no nurse or front-office staff, which means I can save $125,000 to $150,000 a year,” he said.  

In 2018, for the first time, employed physicians outnumbered self-employed physicians, according to a survey by the American Medical Association (AMA). By the end of 2021, more than half (52.1%) of U.S. physicians were employed by hospitals or health systems.

Yet the negatives of employment have begun to turn some physicians back toward private practice. Many physicians who were employed by a hospital or a large practice have become disillusioned and want to return to private practice.
 

His practice is the ‘best of both worlds’

Adam Bruggeman, MD, a 42-year-old spine surgeon who is CEO of Texas Spine Care Center, a solo practice in San Antonio, said he has “the best of both worlds.”

“As a solo physician, I have total control over how I practice,” he said. “But I also have access to value-based contracts and the data and staff needed to implement them.

“You need a lot of administrative overhead to take on these contracts, which a private practice normally doesn’t have,” he said. But Dr. Bruggeman gets this work done through a clinically integrated network (CIN) of private practices, Spinalytics of Texas, where he is chief medical director.

The CIN represents 150 musculoskeletal care providers and provides access to bundled networks, such as a total joint bundle with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, as well as fee-for-service contracts.

He is also building a new ambulatory surgery center (ASC) that is scheduled to open in January. There, he plans to perform total joint and spine surgeries at a lower cost than at the hospital, which will be useful for value-based contracts through the CIN.

Dr. Bruggeman said it would be hard to run his private practice without the CIN and the ASC. “Private practice has changed,” he said. “The days of hanging up a shingle and immediately being successful are gone. You’ve got to be smart about business to run a successful practice.”
 

He started his practice while the pandemic raged

Joe Greene, MD, 42, an orthopedic surgeon in Louisville, Ky., had to open his hip and knee surgery practice when the COVID-19 pandemic was raging a year and a half ago, but that did not stop him.

“Federal financing of small bank loans completely stopped, but that only amounted to a small delay because our bank took care of it,” said Dr. Greene, who codirects his new practice with another orthopedic surgeon.

Even during the pandemic, “we could be very nimble,” he said. “For instance, when we want to institute new technology or a new patient-centric educational platform, we can do it immediately rather than going through an approval process at a health system.”

The partners, both ex-employees of a health system, also have an ASC, which allows them better control over their surgery schedules. “At a hospital, you can be bumped from the schedule by other surgeries, and you can’t be as productive as an ASC in the number of surgeries per day,” he said.

Dr. Greene attributes the practice’s success to long and careful planning. “We had to learn about business,” he said. “We did 3 to 4 years of research to find the right business model and implement it.”

As they were considering the new practice, a survey of patients showed that more than 75% chose them by word-of-mouth – because they specialize in complex and revision surgeries – rather than through referrals within their health system. This meant they could survive without their employer.

Planning for the new practice took up all his free time, but now he can relax and spend time with his three daughters, ages 12, 10, and 8. Dr. Greene currently coaches two of their teams. “We’re loving it,” he said.
 

Colleagues want to know how he did it

Clinton Sheets, MD, an ophthalmologist in Hudson and Clearwater, Fla., went solo in 2019 after being in a group practice for 11 years. Since he opened up, “I get phone calls from colleagues all the time, asking me about how I did it,” he said. “At least two of them followed in my footsteps.

“I tell them it’s very doable,” he said. “If you have the motivation, you can do it. Depending on your competence, you can outsource as much or as little as you want. Some management companies can do almost all of the nonclinical work for you.

“Smaller practices can streamline processes because they have a flatter organizational structure and have fewer issues with administrative bloat than larger organizations,” he said.

“Technology hinders and helps a private practice,” he said. On the one hand, he had to buy a lot of expensive equipment that otherwise would be shared by a group of doctors. On the other hand, using the cloud makes it possible to easily store practice management software and the electronic health record. 
 

He’s opening a private practice while staying employed

In December, Dev Basu, MD, a hospitalist in Baltimore, plans to start his own private practice, seeing patients in skilled nursing homes, while still working as a nocturnist in a large health care system.  

He said his employer has been supportive of his plans. “My work will not directly compete with them and it will benefit them by serving patients discharged from their hospitals,” said Dr. Basu, 38. He added, however, that he will be allowed to work only at certain facilities, and these will be subject to annual review.

“The financial risk of the new practice is low, because I haven’t had to invest much,” he said. “I won’t have a staff or an office.” He plans to maintain his full schedule as an employee, working 12 nights a month, because it will give him a great deal of time to do the new work.

“I also have no particular interest in running a business,” he said. “I come from a family of doctors, professors, and teachers who never ran a business. But I’m willing to learn so that I can practice medicine the way I want to.

“The ability to set my own schedule and deal with patients in the way I think is best is very important to me,” he said.
 

Private practitioners don’t have to face ‘moral distress’

One thing private practitioners typically don’t have to contend with is “moral distress,” which occurs when you have to follow institutional concerns on how much time you can spend with a patient or on the need to keep referrals in-house, according to Marie T. Brown, MD.

Dr. Brown is an internist who ran a small private practice in Oak Park, Ill., and is now the physician lead for the American Medical Association’s STEPS Forward program, which provides strategies on how to improve a medical practice.

“In my private practice, I could control the time I spent with each patient,” she said. “I also had control over my schedule. If I didn’t have the time, I just took a lower income, but that was okay.”

Dr. Brown said it is a myth that employment offers a better work-life balance. “Young physicians who take employment for this reason may find that they’re not allowed to drop off and pick up their children from school at a certain time. But you can do that in a private practice.”

She said it’s not that hard to run a practice. “Young physicians don’t think they could run a practice because they don’t have any business skills,” she said. “Yes, you do need some management skills, and you have to devote time to management. But you don’t need to have special expertise. You can outsource much of the work.”
 

A growing trend?

David J. Zetter, a consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa., who helps doctors set up private practices, sees more interest in this in the past 5 years. “The overwhelming trend used to be private practices being bought up by hospitals and other entities,” he said. “Now we’re seeing the pendulum swing in the opposite direction.

“Generally, these doctors are fed up with being employed at a large organization,” he added. “Recently I got a call from a doctor who had never thought about running his own business, but he’s had it with being an employed physician.”

Switching to private practice is scary for a lot of them, but the alternative is worse. “A podiatrist I’m working with tells me she is scared to death about setting up a private practice, but she’s doing it because she doesn’t want to be employed anymore,” Mr. Zetter said.

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

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is characterized by receptive or expressive language difficulties or both. Children with the neurodevelopmental condition “struggle to comprehend and use their native language for no obvious reason,” said the authors of a new study. This leads to problems with grammar, vocabulary, and holding conversations, and in turn an increased risk of “difficulties when learning to read, underachieving academically, being unemployed, and facing social and mental health challenges.”

The condition is common and estimated to affect 7% of children – approximately two in every classroom – but is “underrecognized” said the authors.

Saloni Krishnan, PhD, reader at Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the study as a research fellow at the University of Oxford, England, explained: “DLD is a relatively unknown and understudied condition, unlike better known neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, or autism.”

It is suspected that children with DLD may have differences in areas of the brain involved with learning habits and rules. “Although we know that DLD does not result from gross neural lesions, we still do not have a clear picture of how brain anatomy differs in children with DLD,” the authors highlighted.
 

Language learning difficulties linked to brain differences

For their study, published in eLife, researchers used an MRI technique called multiparameter mapping (MPM) to investigate microstructural neural differences in children with DLD. The technique measures the properties of brain tissue and is particularly useful for measuring the amounts of myelin.

“Understanding the neural basis of DLD is particularly challenging given the developmental nature of the disorder, as well as the lack of animal models for understanding language,” explained the authors. However, they pointed out that MPM allows an “unparalleled in vivo method” to investigate microstructural neural changes in children with DLD.

Kate Watkins, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of Oxford and senior author, said: “This type of scan tells us more about the makeup or composition of the brain tissue in different areas.”

As part of the Oxford Brain Organisation in Language Development (OxBOLD) study, the researchers recruited and tested 175 children between the ages of 10 and 15 years. Subsequently, 56 children with typical language development and 33 children with DLD were scanned using MPM.

The researchers compared the two groups and found that children with DLD have less myelin in parts of the brain responsible for speaking, listening, and learning rules and habits.

Specifically, maps of magnetization transfer saturation (MTsat) – which index myelin – in children with DLD showed reductions in MTsat values in the caudate nucleus bilaterally, and in the left ventral sensorimotor cortex and Heschl’s gyrus.

“Our findings using this protocol suggest that the caudate nucleus, as well as regions in the wider speech and language network, show alterations in myelin in children with DLD,” explained the authors.

“Given myelin’s role in enabling fast and reliable communication in the brain, reduced myelin content may explain why children with DLD struggle with speech and language processing,” they highlighted.
 

Significant advance in DLD understanding

The study findings established changes in striatal and cortical myelin as a “neural basis for DLD,” explained the journal editor, who highlighted that this was a “significant advance” in the understanding of DLD. “These brain differences may explain the poorer language outcomes in this group,” the authors said.

The findings “strongly point” to a role for the striatum in the development of DLD, and this role is likely to be in the “learning of habits and sequences,” the authors said.

They pointed out, however, that myelin patterns can change over development, and that myelination can be observed after successful training. “It is important to assess whether these differences in myelin persist over development in DLD, and if they can be targeted through training using behavioral interventions,” they emphasized.

Professor Watkins commented: “The findings might help us understand the pathways involved at a biological level and ultimately allow us to explain why children with DLD have problems with language learning.”

A spokesperson for the RADLD (Raising Awareness of Developmental Language Disorder) organization, commented: “Developmental language disorder has long been understood to have a neurological basis; however, these differences in the brain development have received limited attention in research.” It added that utilizing new technology helps to better understand the “potential neurological differences” experienced by people with DLD.

More studies are needed to determine if these brain differences cause language problems and how or if experiencing language difficulties could cause these changes in the brain, explained the authors. They hoped that further research may help scientists find new treatments that target these brain differences.

Funding was provided by UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is characterized by receptive or expressive language difficulties or both. Children with the neurodevelopmental condition “struggle to comprehend and use their native language for no obvious reason,” said the authors of a new study. This leads to problems with grammar, vocabulary, and holding conversations, and in turn an increased risk of “difficulties when learning to read, underachieving academically, being unemployed, and facing social and mental health challenges.”

The condition is common and estimated to affect 7% of children – approximately two in every classroom – but is “underrecognized” said the authors.

Saloni Krishnan, PhD, reader at Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the study as a research fellow at the University of Oxford, England, explained: “DLD is a relatively unknown and understudied condition, unlike better known neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, or autism.”

It is suspected that children with DLD may have differences in areas of the brain involved with learning habits and rules. “Although we know that DLD does not result from gross neural lesions, we still do not have a clear picture of how brain anatomy differs in children with DLD,” the authors highlighted.
 

Language learning difficulties linked to brain differences

For their study, published in eLife, researchers used an MRI technique called multiparameter mapping (MPM) to investigate microstructural neural differences in children with DLD. The technique measures the properties of brain tissue and is particularly useful for measuring the amounts of myelin.

“Understanding the neural basis of DLD is particularly challenging given the developmental nature of the disorder, as well as the lack of animal models for understanding language,” explained the authors. However, they pointed out that MPM allows an “unparalleled in vivo method” to investigate microstructural neural changes in children with DLD.

Kate Watkins, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of Oxford and senior author, said: “This type of scan tells us more about the makeup or composition of the brain tissue in different areas.”

As part of the Oxford Brain Organisation in Language Development (OxBOLD) study, the researchers recruited and tested 175 children between the ages of 10 and 15 years. Subsequently, 56 children with typical language development and 33 children with DLD were scanned using MPM.

The researchers compared the two groups and found that children with DLD have less myelin in parts of the brain responsible for speaking, listening, and learning rules and habits.

Specifically, maps of magnetization transfer saturation (MTsat) – which index myelin – in children with DLD showed reductions in MTsat values in the caudate nucleus bilaterally, and in the left ventral sensorimotor cortex and Heschl’s gyrus.

“Our findings using this protocol suggest that the caudate nucleus, as well as regions in the wider speech and language network, show alterations in myelin in children with DLD,” explained the authors.

“Given myelin’s role in enabling fast and reliable communication in the brain, reduced myelin content may explain why children with DLD struggle with speech and language processing,” they highlighted.
 

Significant advance in DLD understanding

The study findings established changes in striatal and cortical myelin as a “neural basis for DLD,” explained the journal editor, who highlighted that this was a “significant advance” in the understanding of DLD. “These brain differences may explain the poorer language outcomes in this group,” the authors said.

The findings “strongly point” to a role for the striatum in the development of DLD, and this role is likely to be in the “learning of habits and sequences,” the authors said.

They pointed out, however, that myelin patterns can change over development, and that myelination can be observed after successful training. “It is important to assess whether these differences in myelin persist over development in DLD, and if they can be targeted through training using behavioral interventions,” they emphasized.

Professor Watkins commented: “The findings might help us understand the pathways involved at a biological level and ultimately allow us to explain why children with DLD have problems with language learning.”

A spokesperson for the RADLD (Raising Awareness of Developmental Language Disorder) organization, commented: “Developmental language disorder has long been understood to have a neurological basis; however, these differences in the brain development have received limited attention in research.” It added that utilizing new technology helps to better understand the “potential neurological differences” experienced by people with DLD.

More studies are needed to determine if these brain differences cause language problems and how or if experiencing language difficulties could cause these changes in the brain, explained the authors. They hoped that further research may help scientists find new treatments that target these brain differences.

Funding was provided by UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is characterized by receptive or expressive language difficulties or both. Children with the neurodevelopmental condition “struggle to comprehend and use their native language for no obvious reason,” said the authors of a new study. This leads to problems with grammar, vocabulary, and holding conversations, and in turn an increased risk of “difficulties when learning to read, underachieving academically, being unemployed, and facing social and mental health challenges.”

The condition is common and estimated to affect 7% of children – approximately two in every classroom – but is “underrecognized” said the authors.

Saloni Krishnan, PhD, reader at Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the study as a research fellow at the University of Oxford, England, explained: “DLD is a relatively unknown and understudied condition, unlike better known neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, or autism.”

It is suspected that children with DLD may have differences in areas of the brain involved with learning habits and rules. “Although we know that DLD does not result from gross neural lesions, we still do not have a clear picture of how brain anatomy differs in children with DLD,” the authors highlighted.
 

Language learning difficulties linked to brain differences

For their study, published in eLife, researchers used an MRI technique called multiparameter mapping (MPM) to investigate microstructural neural differences in children with DLD. The technique measures the properties of brain tissue and is particularly useful for measuring the amounts of myelin.

“Understanding the neural basis of DLD is particularly challenging given the developmental nature of the disorder, as well as the lack of animal models for understanding language,” explained the authors. However, they pointed out that MPM allows an “unparalleled in vivo method” to investigate microstructural neural changes in children with DLD.

Kate Watkins, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of Oxford and senior author, said: “This type of scan tells us more about the makeup or composition of the brain tissue in different areas.”

As part of the Oxford Brain Organisation in Language Development (OxBOLD) study, the researchers recruited and tested 175 children between the ages of 10 and 15 years. Subsequently, 56 children with typical language development and 33 children with DLD were scanned using MPM.

The researchers compared the two groups and found that children with DLD have less myelin in parts of the brain responsible for speaking, listening, and learning rules and habits.

Specifically, maps of magnetization transfer saturation (MTsat) – which index myelin – in children with DLD showed reductions in MTsat values in the caudate nucleus bilaterally, and in the left ventral sensorimotor cortex and Heschl’s gyrus.

“Our findings using this protocol suggest that the caudate nucleus, as well as regions in the wider speech and language network, show alterations in myelin in children with DLD,” explained the authors.

“Given myelin’s role in enabling fast and reliable communication in the brain, reduced myelin content may explain why children with DLD struggle with speech and language processing,” they highlighted.
 

Significant advance in DLD understanding

The study findings established changes in striatal and cortical myelin as a “neural basis for DLD,” explained the journal editor, who highlighted that this was a “significant advance” in the understanding of DLD. “These brain differences may explain the poorer language outcomes in this group,” the authors said.

The findings “strongly point” to a role for the striatum in the development of DLD, and this role is likely to be in the “learning of habits and sequences,” the authors said.

They pointed out, however, that myelin patterns can change over development, and that myelination can be observed after successful training. “It is important to assess whether these differences in myelin persist over development in DLD, and if they can be targeted through training using behavioral interventions,” they emphasized.

Professor Watkins commented: “The findings might help us understand the pathways involved at a biological level and ultimately allow us to explain why children with DLD have problems with language learning.”

A spokesperson for the RADLD (Raising Awareness of Developmental Language Disorder) organization, commented: “Developmental language disorder has long been understood to have a neurological basis; however, these differences in the brain development have received limited attention in research.” It added that utilizing new technology helps to better understand the “potential neurological differences” experienced by people with DLD.

More studies are needed to determine if these brain differences cause language problems and how or if experiencing language difficulties could cause these changes in the brain, explained the authors. They hoped that further research may help scientists find new treatments that target these brain differences.

Funding was provided by UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars and will almost certainly affect multiple industries, from restaurants struggling to replace low-wage workers, to airlines scrambling to replace crew, to overwhelmed hospitals, experts are predicting.

“There’s a lot we need to do to understand what it takes to enable disabled people to participate more in the economy,” said Katie Bach, a senior fellow with Brookings Institution and the author of a study looking into long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

Data from June 2022 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that, of the 40% of American adults who contracted COVID-19, nearly one in five still have long COVID symptoms. That works out to 1 in 13, or 7.5%, of the overall U.S. adult population.

Drawing from the CDC data, Ms. Bach estimates in her August 2022 report that as many as 4 million working-age Americans are too sick with long COVID to perform their jobs. That works out to as much as $230 billion in lost wages, or almost 1% of the U.S. GDP.

“This is a big deal,” she said. “We’re talking potentially hundreds of billions of dollars a year and that this is big enough to have a measurable impact on the labor market.”

Other sources have suggested lower figures, but the conclusions are the same: Long COVID is an urgent issue that will cost tens of billions of dollars a year in lost wages alone, Ms. Bach said. But it’s not just lost income for workers. There is a cost for businesses and the public.

Throughout the pandemic, COVID-19’s crippling force could be felt across multiple industries. While business has picked up again, staffing shortages remain a challenge. At some airports this summer, air passengers spent hours in security lines; were stranded for days as flights were canceled, rebooked, and canceled again on short notice; and waited weeks for lost luggage. Restaurants have had to cut back their hours. Those seeking medical care had longer than usual wait times in EDs and urgent care clinics. Some EDs temporarily closed.

These challenges have been attributed in part to the “great resignation” and in part because so many infected workers were out, especially during the Omicron waves. But increasingly, economists and health care professionals alike worry about long COVID’s impact on employers and the broader economy.

David Cutler, PhD, a professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., believes the total economic loss could be as high as $3.7 trillion, when factoring in the lost quality of life, the cost in lost earnings, and the cost of higher spending on medical care. His estimate is more than a trillion dollars higher than a previous projection he and fellow economist Lawrence Summers, PhD, made in 2020. The reason? Long COVID.

“The higher estimate is largely a result of the greater prevalence of long COVID than we had guessed at the time,” Dr. Cutler wrote in a paper released in July.

“There are about 10 times the number of people with long COVID as have died of COVID. Because long COVID is so new, there is uncertainty about all of the numbers involved in the calculations. Still, the costs here are conservative, based on only cases to date.”

In Ms. Bach’s Brookings report, she projected that, if recovery from long COVID does not pick up and the population of Americans with long COVID were to grow by 10% a year, the annual cost of lost wages alone could reach half a trillion dollars in a decade.

Meanwhile, a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that workers who missed an entire week of work because of probable COVID-19 illnesses were roughly 7 percentage points less likely to be working a year later, compared with those who did not miss work for health reasons.

“It’s not just individuals with long COVID who are suffering from this. It impacts their families, their livelihoods, and the economy on a global scale. So, we have to raise awareness about those ripple effects,” said Linda Geng, MD, a clinical assistant professor of medicine with Stanford (Calif.) University’s Primary Care and Population Health. 

“I think it’s hard for the public to grasp ... and understand the scale of this public health crisis.”
 

Debilitating fatigue

Long COVID is roughly defined; the CDC defines it as symptoms that linger 3 or more months after a patient first catches the virus.

The symptoms vary and include profound fatigue and brain issues.

“It’s a new degree of extreme and debilitating fatigue and exhaustion, to the point where you can’t do your daily tasks,” said Dr. Geng, who is also the codirector of Stanford’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome Clinic.

“People can be so debilitated, they can’t even do basic things, like the activities of daily living, let alone do their job, particularly if it’s physically or mentally demanding.”

Patients can also have postexertional malaise, where they feel especially bad and symptoms worsen when they exert themselves physically or mentally, Dr. Geng said. Compounding the issue for many long COVID patients is their trouble getting restful sleep. Those with brain fog have issues with memory, processing information, focused concentration, confusion, making mistakes, and multitasking. Pain is another debilitating symptom that can disrupt daily life and ability to work.

Even people with relatively mild infections can end up with long COVID, Dr. Geng said, noting that many of the patients at the Stanford clinic were never hospitalized with their initial infections. While existing research and Dr. Geng’s clinical experience show that long COVID can hit any age, she most commonly sees patients from ages 20 to their 60s, with an average age in the 40s – people in their prime working ages.

Jason Furman, PhD, a former White House economic adviser who is now a professor at Harvard University, noted in August that the labor force participation rate was far below what could be explained by standard demographic changes like an aging population, with the decline evident across all age groups. Dr. Furman does not speculate about why, but others have.

“We are pessimistic: Both the aging of the population and the impact of long COVID imply that the participation rate will be slow to return to its prepandemic level,” Anna Wong, Yelena Shulyatyeva, Andrew Husby, and Eliza Winger, economists with Bloomberg Economics, wrote in a research note. 
 

Supportive policies 

There is some evidence that vaccination reduces the risk of long COVID, but not completely, and it is too early to know if repeat infections increase long COVID risks. There is also no definitive data on how fast or how many people are recovering. Economists often assume that those with long COVID will recover at some point, Ms. Bach noted, but she is careful not to make assumptions.

“If people aren’t recovering, then this group keeps getting bigger,” she said. “We’re still adding, and if people aren’t coming out of that group, this becomes a bigger and bigger problem.”

For now, the number of new people being diagnosed with long COVID appears to have slowed, Ms. Bach said, but it remains to be seen whether the trend can be sustained.

“If people are impaired longer than we think and if the impairment turns out to be severe, then we can have a lot of people who need services like disability insurance,” Dr. Cutler said.

“That could put a really big strain on public sector programs and our ability to meet those needs.”

Policies that support the research and clinical work necessary to prevent and treat long COVID are essential, experts say.

“To me, that is the biggest economic imperative, to say nothing of human suffering,” said Ms. Bach. 

Employers also have a role, and experts say there are a number of accommodations businesses should consider. What happens when an employee has long COVID? Can accommodations be made that allow them to continue working productively? If they spend a great deal of time commuting, can they work from home? What can employers do so that family members do not have to drop out of the workforce to take care of loved ones with long COVID? 
 

Disability insurance

To be sure, there is one piece of the puzzle that does not quite fit, according to Dr. Cutler and Ms. Bach. There is no sign yet of a large increase in federal disability insurance applications, and no one quite knows why. Publicly available government data shows that online applications actually dipped by about 4% each year between 2019 and 2021. Applications in 2022 appear on track to remain slightly below prepandemic levels. 

To qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), people need to have a disability that lasts at least a year. 

“If you’re disabled with long COVID, who knows, right? You don’t know,” said Ms. Bach. “Two of the most dominant symptoms of long COVID are fatigue and brain fog. So, I’ve heard from people that the process of going through an SSDI application is really hard.”

Some long COVID patients told Ms. Bach they simply assumed they would not get SSDI and did not even bother applying. She stressed that working Americans with debilitating long COVID should be aware that their condition is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the challenge, based on guidance issued by the government, is that not all cases of long COVID qualify as a disability and that individual assessments are necessary.

While more long COVID data are needed, Ms. Bach believes there is enough information for decisionmakers to go after the issue more aggressively. She pointed to the $1.15 billion in funding that Congress earmarked for the National Institutes of Health over the course of 4 years in support of research into the long-term health effects of COVID-19.

“Now, $250 million a year sounds like a lot of money until you start talking about the cost of lost wages – just lost wages,” Ms. Bach said. “That’s not lost productivity. That’s not the cost of people whose family members are sick. Who have to reduce their own labor force participation. That’s not medical costs. Suddenly, $250 million doesn’t really sound like that much.”

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

Long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars and will almost certainly affect multiple industries, from restaurants struggling to replace low-wage workers, to airlines scrambling to replace crew, to overwhelmed hospitals, experts are predicting.

“There’s a lot we need to do to understand what it takes to enable disabled people to participate more in the economy,” said Katie Bach, a senior fellow with Brookings Institution and the author of a study looking into long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

Data from June 2022 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that, of the 40% of American adults who contracted COVID-19, nearly one in five still have long COVID symptoms. That works out to 1 in 13, or 7.5%, of the overall U.S. adult population.

Drawing from the CDC data, Ms. Bach estimates in her August 2022 report that as many as 4 million working-age Americans are too sick with long COVID to perform their jobs. That works out to as much as $230 billion in lost wages, or almost 1% of the U.S. GDP.

“This is a big deal,” she said. “We’re talking potentially hundreds of billions of dollars a year and that this is big enough to have a measurable impact on the labor market.”

Other sources have suggested lower figures, but the conclusions are the same: Long COVID is an urgent issue that will cost tens of billions of dollars a year in lost wages alone, Ms. Bach said. But it’s not just lost income for workers. There is a cost for businesses and the public.

Throughout the pandemic, COVID-19’s crippling force could be felt across multiple industries. While business has picked up again, staffing shortages remain a challenge. At some airports this summer, air passengers spent hours in security lines; were stranded for days as flights were canceled, rebooked, and canceled again on short notice; and waited weeks for lost luggage. Restaurants have had to cut back their hours. Those seeking medical care had longer than usual wait times in EDs and urgent care clinics. Some EDs temporarily closed.

These challenges have been attributed in part to the “great resignation” and in part because so many infected workers were out, especially during the Omicron waves. But increasingly, economists and health care professionals alike worry about long COVID’s impact on employers and the broader economy.

David Cutler, PhD, a professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., believes the total economic loss could be as high as $3.7 trillion, when factoring in the lost quality of life, the cost in lost earnings, and the cost of higher spending on medical care. His estimate is more than a trillion dollars higher than a previous projection he and fellow economist Lawrence Summers, PhD, made in 2020. The reason? Long COVID.

“The higher estimate is largely a result of the greater prevalence of long COVID than we had guessed at the time,” Dr. Cutler wrote in a paper released in July.

“There are about 10 times the number of people with long COVID as have died of COVID. Because long COVID is so new, there is uncertainty about all of the numbers involved in the calculations. Still, the costs here are conservative, based on only cases to date.”

In Ms. Bach’s Brookings report, she projected that, if recovery from long COVID does not pick up and the population of Americans with long COVID were to grow by 10% a year, the annual cost of lost wages alone could reach half a trillion dollars in a decade.

Meanwhile, a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that workers who missed an entire week of work because of probable COVID-19 illnesses were roughly 7 percentage points less likely to be working a year later, compared with those who did not miss work for health reasons.

“It’s not just individuals with long COVID who are suffering from this. It impacts their families, their livelihoods, and the economy on a global scale. So, we have to raise awareness about those ripple effects,” said Linda Geng, MD, a clinical assistant professor of medicine with Stanford (Calif.) University’s Primary Care and Population Health. 

“I think it’s hard for the public to grasp ... and understand the scale of this public health crisis.”
 

Debilitating fatigue

Long COVID is roughly defined; the CDC defines it as symptoms that linger 3 or more months after a patient first catches the virus.

The symptoms vary and include profound fatigue and brain issues.

“It’s a new degree of extreme and debilitating fatigue and exhaustion, to the point where you can’t do your daily tasks,” said Dr. Geng, who is also the codirector of Stanford’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome Clinic.

“People can be so debilitated, they can’t even do basic things, like the activities of daily living, let alone do their job, particularly if it’s physically or mentally demanding.”

Patients can also have postexertional malaise, where they feel especially bad and symptoms worsen when they exert themselves physically or mentally, Dr. Geng said. Compounding the issue for many long COVID patients is their trouble getting restful sleep. Those with brain fog have issues with memory, processing information, focused concentration, confusion, making mistakes, and multitasking. Pain is another debilitating symptom that can disrupt daily life and ability to work.

Even people with relatively mild infections can end up with long COVID, Dr. Geng said, noting that many of the patients at the Stanford clinic were never hospitalized with their initial infections. While existing research and Dr. Geng’s clinical experience show that long COVID can hit any age, she most commonly sees patients from ages 20 to their 60s, with an average age in the 40s – people in their prime working ages.

Jason Furman, PhD, a former White House economic adviser who is now a professor at Harvard University, noted in August that the labor force participation rate was far below what could be explained by standard demographic changes like an aging population, with the decline evident across all age groups. Dr. Furman does not speculate about why, but others have.

“We are pessimistic: Both the aging of the population and the impact of long COVID imply that the participation rate will be slow to return to its prepandemic level,” Anna Wong, Yelena Shulyatyeva, Andrew Husby, and Eliza Winger, economists with Bloomberg Economics, wrote in a research note. 
 

Supportive policies 

There is some evidence that vaccination reduces the risk of long COVID, but not completely, and it is too early to know if repeat infections increase long COVID risks. There is also no definitive data on how fast or how many people are recovering. Economists often assume that those with long COVID will recover at some point, Ms. Bach noted, but she is careful not to make assumptions.

“If people aren’t recovering, then this group keeps getting bigger,” she said. “We’re still adding, and if people aren’t coming out of that group, this becomes a bigger and bigger problem.”

For now, the number of new people being diagnosed with long COVID appears to have slowed, Ms. Bach said, but it remains to be seen whether the trend can be sustained.

“If people are impaired longer than we think and if the impairment turns out to be severe, then we can have a lot of people who need services like disability insurance,” Dr. Cutler said.

“That could put a really big strain on public sector programs and our ability to meet those needs.”

Policies that support the research and clinical work necessary to prevent and treat long COVID are essential, experts say.

“To me, that is the biggest economic imperative, to say nothing of human suffering,” said Ms. Bach. 

Employers also have a role, and experts say there are a number of accommodations businesses should consider. What happens when an employee has long COVID? Can accommodations be made that allow them to continue working productively? If they spend a great deal of time commuting, can they work from home? What can employers do so that family members do not have to drop out of the workforce to take care of loved ones with long COVID? 
 

Disability insurance

To be sure, there is one piece of the puzzle that does not quite fit, according to Dr. Cutler and Ms. Bach. There is no sign yet of a large increase in federal disability insurance applications, and no one quite knows why. Publicly available government data shows that online applications actually dipped by about 4% each year between 2019 and 2021. Applications in 2022 appear on track to remain slightly below prepandemic levels. 

To qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), people need to have a disability that lasts at least a year. 

“If you’re disabled with long COVID, who knows, right? You don’t know,” said Ms. Bach. “Two of the most dominant symptoms of long COVID are fatigue and brain fog. So, I’ve heard from people that the process of going through an SSDI application is really hard.”

Some long COVID patients told Ms. Bach they simply assumed they would not get SSDI and did not even bother applying. She stressed that working Americans with debilitating long COVID should be aware that their condition is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the challenge, based on guidance issued by the government, is that not all cases of long COVID qualify as a disability and that individual assessments are necessary.

While more long COVID data are needed, Ms. Bach believes there is enough information for decisionmakers to go after the issue more aggressively. She pointed to the $1.15 billion in funding that Congress earmarked for the National Institutes of Health over the course of 4 years in support of research into the long-term health effects of COVID-19.

“Now, $250 million a year sounds like a lot of money until you start talking about the cost of lost wages – just lost wages,” Ms. Bach said. “That’s not lost productivity. That’s not the cost of people whose family members are sick. Who have to reduce their own labor force participation. That’s not medical costs. Suddenly, $250 million doesn’t really sound like that much.”

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

Long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars and will almost certainly affect multiple industries, from restaurants struggling to replace low-wage workers, to airlines scrambling to replace crew, to overwhelmed hospitals, experts are predicting.

“There’s a lot we need to do to understand what it takes to enable disabled people to participate more in the economy,” said Katie Bach, a senior fellow with Brookings Institution and the author of a study looking into long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

Data from June 2022 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that, of the 40% of American adults who contracted COVID-19, nearly one in five still have long COVID symptoms. That works out to 1 in 13, or 7.5%, of the overall U.S. adult population.

Drawing from the CDC data, Ms. Bach estimates in her August 2022 report that as many as 4 million working-age Americans are too sick with long COVID to perform their jobs. That works out to as much as $230 billion in lost wages, or almost 1% of the U.S. GDP.

“This is a big deal,” she said. “We’re talking potentially hundreds of billions of dollars a year and that this is big enough to have a measurable impact on the labor market.”

Other sources have suggested lower figures, but the conclusions are the same: Long COVID is an urgent issue that will cost tens of billions of dollars a year in lost wages alone, Ms. Bach said. But it’s not just lost income for workers. There is a cost for businesses and the public.

Throughout the pandemic, COVID-19’s crippling force could be felt across multiple industries. While business has picked up again, staffing shortages remain a challenge. At some airports this summer, air passengers spent hours in security lines; were stranded for days as flights were canceled, rebooked, and canceled again on short notice; and waited weeks for lost luggage. Restaurants have had to cut back their hours. Those seeking medical care had longer than usual wait times in EDs and urgent care clinics. Some EDs temporarily closed.

These challenges have been attributed in part to the “great resignation” and in part because so many infected workers were out, especially during the Omicron waves. But increasingly, economists and health care professionals alike worry about long COVID’s impact on employers and the broader economy.

David Cutler, PhD, a professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., believes the total economic loss could be as high as $3.7 trillion, when factoring in the lost quality of life, the cost in lost earnings, and the cost of higher spending on medical care. His estimate is more than a trillion dollars higher than a previous projection he and fellow economist Lawrence Summers, PhD, made in 2020. The reason? Long COVID.

“The higher estimate is largely a result of the greater prevalence of long COVID than we had guessed at the time,” Dr. Cutler wrote in a paper released in July.

“There are about 10 times the number of people with long COVID as have died of COVID. Because long COVID is so new, there is uncertainty about all of the numbers involved in the calculations. Still, the costs here are conservative, based on only cases to date.”

In Ms. Bach’s Brookings report, she projected that, if recovery from long COVID does not pick up and the population of Americans with long COVID were to grow by 10% a year, the annual cost of lost wages alone could reach half a trillion dollars in a decade.

Meanwhile, a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that workers who missed an entire week of work because of probable COVID-19 illnesses were roughly 7 percentage points less likely to be working a year later, compared with those who did not miss work for health reasons.

“It’s not just individuals with long COVID who are suffering from this. It impacts their families, their livelihoods, and the economy on a global scale. So, we have to raise awareness about those ripple effects,” said Linda Geng, MD, a clinical assistant professor of medicine with Stanford (Calif.) University’s Primary Care and Population Health. 

“I think it’s hard for the public to grasp ... and understand the scale of this public health crisis.”
 

Debilitating fatigue

Long COVID is roughly defined; the CDC defines it as symptoms that linger 3 or more months after a patient first catches the virus.

The symptoms vary and include profound fatigue and brain issues.

“It’s a new degree of extreme and debilitating fatigue and exhaustion, to the point where you can’t do your daily tasks,” said Dr. Geng, who is also the codirector of Stanford’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome Clinic.

“People can be so debilitated, they can’t even do basic things, like the activities of daily living, let alone do their job, particularly if it’s physically or mentally demanding.”

Patients can also have postexertional malaise, where they feel especially bad and symptoms worsen when they exert themselves physically or mentally, Dr. Geng said. Compounding the issue for many long COVID patients is their trouble getting restful sleep. Those with brain fog have issues with memory, processing information, focused concentration, confusion, making mistakes, and multitasking. Pain is another debilitating symptom that can disrupt daily life and ability to work.

Even people with relatively mild infections can end up with long COVID, Dr. Geng said, noting that many of the patients at the Stanford clinic were never hospitalized with their initial infections. While existing research and Dr. Geng’s clinical experience show that long COVID can hit any age, she most commonly sees patients from ages 20 to their 60s, with an average age in the 40s – people in their prime working ages.

Jason Furman, PhD, a former White House economic adviser who is now a professor at Harvard University, noted in August that the labor force participation rate was far below what could be explained by standard demographic changes like an aging population, with the decline evident across all age groups. Dr. Furman does not speculate about why, but others have.

“We are pessimistic: Both the aging of the population and the impact of long COVID imply that the participation rate will be slow to return to its prepandemic level,” Anna Wong, Yelena Shulyatyeva, Andrew Husby, and Eliza Winger, economists with Bloomberg Economics, wrote in a research note. 
 

Supportive policies 

There is some evidence that vaccination reduces the risk of long COVID, but not completely, and it is too early to know if repeat infections increase long COVID risks. There is also no definitive data on how fast or how many people are recovering. Economists often assume that those with long COVID will recover at some point, Ms. Bach noted, but she is careful not to make assumptions.

“If people aren’t recovering, then this group keeps getting bigger,” she said. “We’re still adding, and if people aren’t coming out of that group, this becomes a bigger and bigger problem.”

For now, the number of new people being diagnosed with long COVID appears to have slowed, Ms. Bach said, but it remains to be seen whether the trend can be sustained.

“If people are impaired longer than we think and if the impairment turns out to be severe, then we can have a lot of people who need services like disability insurance,” Dr. Cutler said.

“That could put a really big strain on public sector programs and our ability to meet those needs.”

Policies that support the research and clinical work necessary to prevent and treat long COVID are essential, experts say.

“To me, that is the biggest economic imperative, to say nothing of human suffering,” said Ms. Bach. 

Employers also have a role, and experts say there are a number of accommodations businesses should consider. What happens when an employee has long COVID? Can accommodations be made that allow them to continue working productively? If they spend a great deal of time commuting, can they work from home? What can employers do so that family members do not have to drop out of the workforce to take care of loved ones with long COVID? 
 

Disability insurance

To be sure, there is one piece of the puzzle that does not quite fit, according to Dr. Cutler and Ms. Bach. There is no sign yet of a large increase in federal disability insurance applications, and no one quite knows why. Publicly available government data shows that online applications actually dipped by about 4% each year between 2019 and 2021. Applications in 2022 appear on track to remain slightly below prepandemic levels. 

To qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), people need to have a disability that lasts at least a year. 

“If you’re disabled with long COVID, who knows, right? You don’t know,” said Ms. Bach. “Two of the most dominant symptoms of long COVID are fatigue and brain fog. So, I’ve heard from people that the process of going through an SSDI application is really hard.”

Some long COVID patients told Ms. Bach they simply assumed they would not get SSDI and did not even bother applying. She stressed that working Americans with debilitating long COVID should be aware that their condition is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the challenge, based on guidance issued by the government, is that not all cases of long COVID qualify as a disability and that individual assessments are necessary.

While more long COVID data are needed, Ms. Bach believes there is enough information for decisionmakers to go after the issue more aggressively. She pointed to the $1.15 billion in funding that Congress earmarked for the National Institutes of Health over the course of 4 years in support of research into the long-term health effects of COVID-19.

“Now, $250 million a year sounds like a lot of money until you start talking about the cost of lost wages – just lost wages,” Ms. Bach said. “That’s not lost productivity. That’s not the cost of people whose family members are sick. Who have to reduce their own labor force participation. That’s not medical costs. Suddenly, $250 million doesn’t really sound like that much.”

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