User login
Neurology Reviews covers innovative and emerging news in neurology and neuroscience every month, with a focus on practical approaches to treating Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, headache, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and other neurologic disorders.
PML
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Rituxan
The leading independent newspaper covering neurology news and commentary.
FDA approves ‘rapid-acting’ oral drug for major depression
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, its manufacturer has announced.
Auvelity (Axsome Therapeutics) is a proprietary extended-release oral tablet containing dextromethorphan (45 mg) and bupropion (105 mg).
,” the company said in a news release.
“The approval of Auvelity represents a milestone in depression treatment based on its novel oral NMDA antagonist mechanism, its rapid antidepressant efficacy demonstrated in controlled trials, and a relatively favorable safety profile,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist-in-chief, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, added in the release.
‘Milestone’ in depression treatment?
Dr. Fava noted that nearly two-thirds of patients treated with currently available antidepressants fail to respond adequately, and those who do may not achieve clinically meaningful responses for up to 6-8 weeks.
“Given the debilitating nature of depression, the efficacy of Auvelity observed at 1 week and sustained thereafter may have a significant impact on the current treatment paradigm for this condition,” he said.
The company noted the drug was studied in a comprehensive clinical program that included more than 1,100 patients with MDD.
The efficacy of the drug was demonstrated in the GEMINI placebo-controlled study – with confirmatory evidence provided by the ASCEND study, which compared it with bupropion sustained-release tablets.
Axsome said it expects to launch the new oral medication in the fourth quarter of this year. It is not approved for use in children.
The full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, its manufacturer has announced.
Auvelity (Axsome Therapeutics) is a proprietary extended-release oral tablet containing dextromethorphan (45 mg) and bupropion (105 mg).
,” the company said in a news release.
“The approval of Auvelity represents a milestone in depression treatment based on its novel oral NMDA antagonist mechanism, its rapid antidepressant efficacy demonstrated in controlled trials, and a relatively favorable safety profile,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist-in-chief, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, added in the release.
‘Milestone’ in depression treatment?
Dr. Fava noted that nearly two-thirds of patients treated with currently available antidepressants fail to respond adequately, and those who do may not achieve clinically meaningful responses for up to 6-8 weeks.
“Given the debilitating nature of depression, the efficacy of Auvelity observed at 1 week and sustained thereafter may have a significant impact on the current treatment paradigm for this condition,” he said.
The company noted the drug was studied in a comprehensive clinical program that included more than 1,100 patients with MDD.
The efficacy of the drug was demonstrated in the GEMINI placebo-controlled study – with confirmatory evidence provided by the ASCEND study, which compared it with bupropion sustained-release tablets.
Axsome said it expects to launch the new oral medication in the fourth quarter of this year. It is not approved for use in children.
The full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, its manufacturer has announced.
Auvelity (Axsome Therapeutics) is a proprietary extended-release oral tablet containing dextromethorphan (45 mg) and bupropion (105 mg).
,” the company said in a news release.
“The approval of Auvelity represents a milestone in depression treatment based on its novel oral NMDA antagonist mechanism, its rapid antidepressant efficacy demonstrated in controlled trials, and a relatively favorable safety profile,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist-in-chief, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, added in the release.
‘Milestone’ in depression treatment?
Dr. Fava noted that nearly two-thirds of patients treated with currently available antidepressants fail to respond adequately, and those who do may not achieve clinically meaningful responses for up to 6-8 weeks.
“Given the debilitating nature of depression, the efficacy of Auvelity observed at 1 week and sustained thereafter may have a significant impact on the current treatment paradigm for this condition,” he said.
The company noted the drug was studied in a comprehensive clinical program that included more than 1,100 patients with MDD.
The efficacy of the drug was demonstrated in the GEMINI placebo-controlled study – with confirmatory evidence provided by the ASCEND study, which compared it with bupropion sustained-release tablets.
Axsome said it expects to launch the new oral medication in the fourth quarter of this year. It is not approved for use in children.
The full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Watching TV, using computer have opposite ties to dementia risk
The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.
The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.
They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.
Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
More than 140,000 included in study
The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.
The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.
TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).
TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].
Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.
Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).
Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.
These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
Physical is still better than sedentary activity
One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”
Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.
“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.
“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.
It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.
The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.
“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.
A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.
“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.
The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.
The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.
The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.
They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.
Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
More than 140,000 included in study
The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.
The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.
TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).
TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].
Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.
Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).
Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.
These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
Physical is still better than sedentary activity
One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”
Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.
“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.
“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.
It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.
The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.
“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.
A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.
“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.
The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.
The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.
The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.
They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.
Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
More than 140,000 included in study
The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.
The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.
TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).
TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].
Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.
Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).
Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.
These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
Physical is still better than sedentary activity
One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”
Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.
“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.
“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.
It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.
The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.
“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.
A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.
“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.
The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.
FROM PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Atrial cardiopathy linked to 35% higher dementia risk
“We cautiously suggest that an understanding of this relationship might provide a basis for new interventional strategies to help thwart the development of dementia,” the authors write.
The research, led by Michelle C. Johansen, MD, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
Atrial cardiopathy, characterized by abnormal size and function of the left atrium, has been associated with an increased risk of stroke and atrial fibrillation (AFib), and because both stroke and AFib are associated with an increased dementia risk, the authors write, it was important to investigate whether atrial cardiopathy is linked to dementia.
If that’s the case, they reasoned, the next question was whether that link is independent of AFib and stroke, and their new research suggests that it is.
For this analysis, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort analysis of participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who were attending visit 5 (2011-2013). During their fifth, sixth, and seventh clinical visits, the ARIC participants were evaluated for cognitive decline indicating dementia.
They studied a diverse population of 5,078 older adults living in four U.S. communities: Washington County, Md.; Forsyth County, N.C.; the northwestern suburbs of Minneapolis; and Jackson, Miss.
Just more than a third (34%) had atrial cardiopathy (average age, 75 years; 59% female; 21% Black) and 763 participants developed dementia.
Investigators found that atrial cardiopathy was significantly associated with dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.58]).
They considered ARIC participants to have atrial cardiopathy if they had at least one of the following: P-wave terminal force greater than 5,000 mV·ms in ECG lead V1; NTproBNP greater than 250 pg/mL; or left atrial volume index greater than or equal to 34 mL/m2 by transthoracic echocardiography.
The risk of dementia was even stronger when the researchers defined cardiopathy by at least two biomarkers instead of one (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.25-1.89]).
The authors point out, however, that this study is observational and cannot make a causal link.
Clifford Kavinsky, MD, PhD, head of the Comprehensive Stroke and Cardiology Clinic at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, told this news organization that much more research would need to be done to show convincingly that atrial cardiopathy causes dementia.
He called the findings “provocative in trying to understand in a general sense how cardiac dysfunction leads to dementia.”
“We all know heart failure leads to dementia, but now we see there may be a relationship with just dysfunction of the upper chambers,” he said.
Unresolved questions
But it still not clear is what is mediating the connection, who is at risk, and how the increased risk can be prevented, he said.
He said he also wonders whether the results eliminated all patients with atrial fibrillation, a point the authors acknowledge as well.
Researchers list in the limitations that “asymptomatic AFib or silent cerebral infarction may have been missed by the ARIC adjudication process.”
There is broad understanding that preventing heart disease is important for a wide array of reasons, Dr. Kavinsky noted, and one of the reasons is cognitive deterioration.
He said this study helps identify that “even dysfunction of the upper chambers of the heart contributes to the evolution of dementia.”
The study amplifies the need to shift to prevention with heart disease in general, and more specifically in atrial dysfunction, Dr. Kavinsky said, noting a lot of atrial dysfunction is mediated by underlying hypertension and coronary disease.
Researchers evaluated cognitive decline in all participants with a comprehensive array of neuropsychological tests and interviewed some of the patients.
“A diagnosis of dementia was generated based on testing results by a computer diagnostic algorithm and then decided upon by an expert based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the criteria outlined by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institutes of Health,” they write.
Dr. Johansen reported funding from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Study coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Kavinsky has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We cautiously suggest that an understanding of this relationship might provide a basis for new interventional strategies to help thwart the development of dementia,” the authors write.
The research, led by Michelle C. Johansen, MD, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
Atrial cardiopathy, characterized by abnormal size and function of the left atrium, has been associated with an increased risk of stroke and atrial fibrillation (AFib), and because both stroke and AFib are associated with an increased dementia risk, the authors write, it was important to investigate whether atrial cardiopathy is linked to dementia.
If that’s the case, they reasoned, the next question was whether that link is independent of AFib and stroke, and their new research suggests that it is.
For this analysis, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort analysis of participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who were attending visit 5 (2011-2013). During their fifth, sixth, and seventh clinical visits, the ARIC participants were evaluated for cognitive decline indicating dementia.
They studied a diverse population of 5,078 older adults living in four U.S. communities: Washington County, Md.; Forsyth County, N.C.; the northwestern suburbs of Minneapolis; and Jackson, Miss.
Just more than a third (34%) had atrial cardiopathy (average age, 75 years; 59% female; 21% Black) and 763 participants developed dementia.
Investigators found that atrial cardiopathy was significantly associated with dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.58]).
They considered ARIC participants to have atrial cardiopathy if they had at least one of the following: P-wave terminal force greater than 5,000 mV·ms in ECG lead V1; NTproBNP greater than 250 pg/mL; or left atrial volume index greater than or equal to 34 mL/m2 by transthoracic echocardiography.
The risk of dementia was even stronger when the researchers defined cardiopathy by at least two biomarkers instead of one (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.25-1.89]).
The authors point out, however, that this study is observational and cannot make a causal link.
Clifford Kavinsky, MD, PhD, head of the Comprehensive Stroke and Cardiology Clinic at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, told this news organization that much more research would need to be done to show convincingly that atrial cardiopathy causes dementia.
He called the findings “provocative in trying to understand in a general sense how cardiac dysfunction leads to dementia.”
“We all know heart failure leads to dementia, but now we see there may be a relationship with just dysfunction of the upper chambers,” he said.
Unresolved questions
But it still not clear is what is mediating the connection, who is at risk, and how the increased risk can be prevented, he said.
He said he also wonders whether the results eliminated all patients with atrial fibrillation, a point the authors acknowledge as well.
Researchers list in the limitations that “asymptomatic AFib or silent cerebral infarction may have been missed by the ARIC adjudication process.”
There is broad understanding that preventing heart disease is important for a wide array of reasons, Dr. Kavinsky noted, and one of the reasons is cognitive deterioration.
He said this study helps identify that “even dysfunction of the upper chambers of the heart contributes to the evolution of dementia.”
The study amplifies the need to shift to prevention with heart disease in general, and more specifically in atrial dysfunction, Dr. Kavinsky said, noting a lot of atrial dysfunction is mediated by underlying hypertension and coronary disease.
Researchers evaluated cognitive decline in all participants with a comprehensive array of neuropsychological tests and interviewed some of the patients.
“A diagnosis of dementia was generated based on testing results by a computer diagnostic algorithm and then decided upon by an expert based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the criteria outlined by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institutes of Health,” they write.
Dr. Johansen reported funding from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Study coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Kavinsky has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We cautiously suggest that an understanding of this relationship might provide a basis for new interventional strategies to help thwart the development of dementia,” the authors write.
The research, led by Michelle C. Johansen, MD, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
Atrial cardiopathy, characterized by abnormal size and function of the left atrium, has been associated with an increased risk of stroke and atrial fibrillation (AFib), and because both stroke and AFib are associated with an increased dementia risk, the authors write, it was important to investigate whether atrial cardiopathy is linked to dementia.
If that’s the case, they reasoned, the next question was whether that link is independent of AFib and stroke, and their new research suggests that it is.
For this analysis, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort analysis of participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who were attending visit 5 (2011-2013). During their fifth, sixth, and seventh clinical visits, the ARIC participants were evaluated for cognitive decline indicating dementia.
They studied a diverse population of 5,078 older adults living in four U.S. communities: Washington County, Md.; Forsyth County, N.C.; the northwestern suburbs of Minneapolis; and Jackson, Miss.
Just more than a third (34%) had atrial cardiopathy (average age, 75 years; 59% female; 21% Black) and 763 participants developed dementia.
Investigators found that atrial cardiopathy was significantly associated with dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.58]).
They considered ARIC participants to have atrial cardiopathy if they had at least one of the following: P-wave terminal force greater than 5,000 mV·ms in ECG lead V1; NTproBNP greater than 250 pg/mL; or left atrial volume index greater than or equal to 34 mL/m2 by transthoracic echocardiography.
The risk of dementia was even stronger when the researchers defined cardiopathy by at least two biomarkers instead of one (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.25-1.89]).
The authors point out, however, that this study is observational and cannot make a causal link.
Clifford Kavinsky, MD, PhD, head of the Comprehensive Stroke and Cardiology Clinic at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, told this news organization that much more research would need to be done to show convincingly that atrial cardiopathy causes dementia.
He called the findings “provocative in trying to understand in a general sense how cardiac dysfunction leads to dementia.”
“We all know heart failure leads to dementia, but now we see there may be a relationship with just dysfunction of the upper chambers,” he said.
Unresolved questions
But it still not clear is what is mediating the connection, who is at risk, and how the increased risk can be prevented, he said.
He said he also wonders whether the results eliminated all patients with atrial fibrillation, a point the authors acknowledge as well.
Researchers list in the limitations that “asymptomatic AFib or silent cerebral infarction may have been missed by the ARIC adjudication process.”
There is broad understanding that preventing heart disease is important for a wide array of reasons, Dr. Kavinsky noted, and one of the reasons is cognitive deterioration.
He said this study helps identify that “even dysfunction of the upper chambers of the heart contributes to the evolution of dementia.”
The study amplifies the need to shift to prevention with heart disease in general, and more specifically in atrial dysfunction, Dr. Kavinsky said, noting a lot of atrial dysfunction is mediated by underlying hypertension and coronary disease.
Researchers evaluated cognitive decline in all participants with a comprehensive array of neuropsychological tests and interviewed some of the patients.
“A diagnosis of dementia was generated based on testing results by a computer diagnostic algorithm and then decided upon by an expert based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the criteria outlined by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institutes of Health,” they write.
Dr. Johansen reported funding from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Study coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Kavinsky has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is it COVID or long COVID? Your organs may know
There’s little doubt long COVID is real. The federal government recognizes long COVID as a condition and said in two reports issued in August that one in five adult COVID-19 survivors have a health condition related to their illness.
COVID-19 can damage multiple organs in the body. Sometimes this damage leads to long COVID; sometimes other reasons are at play. Doctors are beginning to sort it out.
“COVID itself can actually cause prolonged illness, and we don’t really call that long COVID,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, a doctor at UCLA Health in Los Angeles. But if symptoms extend beyond 12 weeks, that puts patients in the realm of long COVID.
Symptoms can range from mild to severe and can keep people from resuming their normal lives and jobs. Sometimes they last for months, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
Multiorgan damage
Lung scarring and other lung problems are common after COVID, said Leora Horwitz, MD, an internal medicine specialist at New York University. Even after a mild case, people can have breathing issues for months, a team at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an online briefing. One study published in the journal Radiology found damage in people a full year after a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Some people have persistent heart, kidney, liver, and nervous system problems after COVID-19. A study published in 2020 in JAMA Cardiology found 60% of people who had COVID-19 had ongoing signs of heart inflammation. Nearly a third of people hospitalized for COVID-19 get kidney damage that can become chronic, and some end up needing dialysis or a transplant, said C. John Sperati, MD, a kidney specialist at Johns Hopkins Medicine.
This might be, in part, because SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, directly infects the cells in many organs.
Nicole Bhave, MD, a cardiologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor is concerned that COVID-19 appears to increase the risk of heart problems in some people.
“Some of the uptick may just be recognition bias, in that people with symptoms are seeking care,” she said. “But there’s definitely a biological basis by which COVID could tip people over into a new diagnosis of heart failure.”
Inflammation
Inflammation is probably a key part of the long-term effects of COVID-19.
Some people have a serious immune reaction to COVID-19 called a cytokine storm, said Nitra Aggarwal Gilotra, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine. This release of inflammation-causing molecules called cytokines is meant to attack the invading virus. But it can be so severe that it wreaks havoc on healthy tissues and organs and causes lasting damage – if patients even survive it.
In some people, inflammation can affect the heart, causing myocarditis. Myocarditis symptoms include chest pain, breathlessness, and heart palpitations. Though rare, it can be serious and can raise the risk of other heart problems, including heart failure, down the line.
Long COVID may also trigger an autoimmune condition, said Eline Luning Prak, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Long COVID can share many hallmark symptoms with autoimmune diseases, including fatigue, widespread pain, memory problems, and mood disorders.
Blood clots
Studies have shown the overcharged inflammatory response to COVID-19 can cause blood clots. This sometimes overwhelming clotting was an early hallmark of COVID-19 infection, and when clots restrict blood flow in the brain, lungs, kidneys, or limbs, they can cause long-term damage. Some can be deadly. Researchers in Sweden found patients were at risk of deep vein thrombosis – a blood clot usually in the leg – up to 3 months after infection and at higher risk of a blood clot in the lung, called pulmonary embolism, for as long as 3 months.
Viral reservoirs
The virus itself may also linger in a patient’s body, causing continued symptoms and, potentially, new flare-ups. Zoe Swank, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in a preprint study that they found pieces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the blood of most patients with long COVID symptoms they tested – some as long as a year after infection. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.
Another team found evidence of the virus in stool up to 7 months later, which suggests the virus hides out in the gut. Other early studies have found bits of viral RNA in the appendix, breast tissue, heart, eyes, and brain.
Diabetes
Diabetes is a risk factor for getting severe COVID-19, and multiple studies have shown people can get diabetes both while battling infection and afterward. One study of veterans, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, found COVID-19 survivors were about 40% more likely to get diabetes over the next year.
There are a few ways this might happen. Insulin-producing cells in the pancreas have SARS-CoV-2 receptors – a type of molecular doorway the coronavirus can attach to. Damage to these cells could make the body less able to produce insulin, which in turn can lead to diabetes. The virus could also disrupt the balance in the body or cause inflammation that leads to insulin resistance, which can develop into diabetes, Ziad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues wrote.
Nervous system issues
People who get COVID-19 are also more vulnerable to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). This affects what’s known as the autonomic nervous system, which regulates blood circulation, and includes those things that happen in your body without your having to think about them, like breathing, heartbeat, and digestion. POTS can cause common long COVID neurologic symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and problems thinking and concentrating. “This was a known condition prior to COVID, but it was incredibly rare,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “After COVID, I’ve seen it with increasing frequency.”
Long-term outlook
Lasting issues after COVID-19 are much more likely after a moderate or severe infection. Still, plenty of people are battling them even after a mild illness. “As for why, that’s the billion-dollar question,” said Dr. Horwitz. “It’s well known that viral infections can cause long-term dysregulation. Why that is, we really just don’t know.”
Whether it’s virus hiding out in the body, long-term organ damage, or an autoimmune reaction likely differs from person to person. “I’m believing, increasingly, that it’s a combination of all of these, just based on how different patients are responding to different medications,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “One patient will respond to something beautifully, and another patient won’t at all.”
But it’s clear a significant number of people are facing long-term health struggles because of COVID-19, which has infected at least 580 million people globally and 92 million – likely many more – in the United States, according to Johns Hopkins University.
Even a small increased risk of conditions like heart disease or diabetes translates to a huge number of people, Dr. Horwitz said. “If even 1% of people getting COVID have long-term symptoms, that’s a major public health crisis, because that’s 1% of pretty much everybody in the country.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
There’s little doubt long COVID is real. The federal government recognizes long COVID as a condition and said in two reports issued in August that one in five adult COVID-19 survivors have a health condition related to their illness.
COVID-19 can damage multiple organs in the body. Sometimes this damage leads to long COVID; sometimes other reasons are at play. Doctors are beginning to sort it out.
“COVID itself can actually cause prolonged illness, and we don’t really call that long COVID,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, a doctor at UCLA Health in Los Angeles. But if symptoms extend beyond 12 weeks, that puts patients in the realm of long COVID.
Symptoms can range from mild to severe and can keep people from resuming their normal lives and jobs. Sometimes they last for months, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
Multiorgan damage
Lung scarring and other lung problems are common after COVID, said Leora Horwitz, MD, an internal medicine specialist at New York University. Even after a mild case, people can have breathing issues for months, a team at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an online briefing. One study published in the journal Radiology found damage in people a full year after a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Some people have persistent heart, kidney, liver, and nervous system problems after COVID-19. A study published in 2020 in JAMA Cardiology found 60% of people who had COVID-19 had ongoing signs of heart inflammation. Nearly a third of people hospitalized for COVID-19 get kidney damage that can become chronic, and some end up needing dialysis or a transplant, said C. John Sperati, MD, a kidney specialist at Johns Hopkins Medicine.
This might be, in part, because SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, directly infects the cells in many organs.
Nicole Bhave, MD, a cardiologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor is concerned that COVID-19 appears to increase the risk of heart problems in some people.
“Some of the uptick may just be recognition bias, in that people with symptoms are seeking care,” she said. “But there’s definitely a biological basis by which COVID could tip people over into a new diagnosis of heart failure.”
Inflammation
Inflammation is probably a key part of the long-term effects of COVID-19.
Some people have a serious immune reaction to COVID-19 called a cytokine storm, said Nitra Aggarwal Gilotra, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine. This release of inflammation-causing molecules called cytokines is meant to attack the invading virus. But it can be so severe that it wreaks havoc on healthy tissues and organs and causes lasting damage – if patients even survive it.
In some people, inflammation can affect the heart, causing myocarditis. Myocarditis symptoms include chest pain, breathlessness, and heart palpitations. Though rare, it can be serious and can raise the risk of other heart problems, including heart failure, down the line.
Long COVID may also trigger an autoimmune condition, said Eline Luning Prak, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Long COVID can share many hallmark symptoms with autoimmune diseases, including fatigue, widespread pain, memory problems, and mood disorders.
Blood clots
Studies have shown the overcharged inflammatory response to COVID-19 can cause blood clots. This sometimes overwhelming clotting was an early hallmark of COVID-19 infection, and when clots restrict blood flow in the brain, lungs, kidneys, or limbs, they can cause long-term damage. Some can be deadly. Researchers in Sweden found patients were at risk of deep vein thrombosis – a blood clot usually in the leg – up to 3 months after infection and at higher risk of a blood clot in the lung, called pulmonary embolism, for as long as 3 months.
Viral reservoirs
The virus itself may also linger in a patient’s body, causing continued symptoms and, potentially, new flare-ups. Zoe Swank, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in a preprint study that they found pieces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the blood of most patients with long COVID symptoms they tested – some as long as a year after infection. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.
Another team found evidence of the virus in stool up to 7 months later, which suggests the virus hides out in the gut. Other early studies have found bits of viral RNA in the appendix, breast tissue, heart, eyes, and brain.
Diabetes
Diabetes is a risk factor for getting severe COVID-19, and multiple studies have shown people can get diabetes both while battling infection and afterward. One study of veterans, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, found COVID-19 survivors were about 40% more likely to get diabetes over the next year.
There are a few ways this might happen. Insulin-producing cells in the pancreas have SARS-CoV-2 receptors – a type of molecular doorway the coronavirus can attach to. Damage to these cells could make the body less able to produce insulin, which in turn can lead to diabetes. The virus could also disrupt the balance in the body or cause inflammation that leads to insulin resistance, which can develop into diabetes, Ziad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues wrote.
Nervous system issues
People who get COVID-19 are also more vulnerable to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). This affects what’s known as the autonomic nervous system, which regulates blood circulation, and includes those things that happen in your body without your having to think about them, like breathing, heartbeat, and digestion. POTS can cause common long COVID neurologic symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and problems thinking and concentrating. “This was a known condition prior to COVID, but it was incredibly rare,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “After COVID, I’ve seen it with increasing frequency.”
Long-term outlook
Lasting issues after COVID-19 are much more likely after a moderate or severe infection. Still, plenty of people are battling them even after a mild illness. “As for why, that’s the billion-dollar question,” said Dr. Horwitz. “It’s well known that viral infections can cause long-term dysregulation. Why that is, we really just don’t know.”
Whether it’s virus hiding out in the body, long-term organ damage, or an autoimmune reaction likely differs from person to person. “I’m believing, increasingly, that it’s a combination of all of these, just based on how different patients are responding to different medications,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “One patient will respond to something beautifully, and another patient won’t at all.”
But it’s clear a significant number of people are facing long-term health struggles because of COVID-19, which has infected at least 580 million people globally and 92 million – likely many more – in the United States, according to Johns Hopkins University.
Even a small increased risk of conditions like heart disease or diabetes translates to a huge number of people, Dr. Horwitz said. “If even 1% of people getting COVID have long-term symptoms, that’s a major public health crisis, because that’s 1% of pretty much everybody in the country.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
There’s little doubt long COVID is real. The federal government recognizes long COVID as a condition and said in two reports issued in August that one in five adult COVID-19 survivors have a health condition related to their illness.
COVID-19 can damage multiple organs in the body. Sometimes this damage leads to long COVID; sometimes other reasons are at play. Doctors are beginning to sort it out.
“COVID itself can actually cause prolonged illness, and we don’t really call that long COVID,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, a doctor at UCLA Health in Los Angeles. But if symptoms extend beyond 12 weeks, that puts patients in the realm of long COVID.
Symptoms can range from mild to severe and can keep people from resuming their normal lives and jobs. Sometimes they last for months, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
Multiorgan damage
Lung scarring and other lung problems are common after COVID, said Leora Horwitz, MD, an internal medicine specialist at New York University. Even after a mild case, people can have breathing issues for months, a team at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an online briefing. One study published in the journal Radiology found damage in people a full year after a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Some people have persistent heart, kidney, liver, and nervous system problems after COVID-19. A study published in 2020 in JAMA Cardiology found 60% of people who had COVID-19 had ongoing signs of heart inflammation. Nearly a third of people hospitalized for COVID-19 get kidney damage that can become chronic, and some end up needing dialysis or a transplant, said C. John Sperati, MD, a kidney specialist at Johns Hopkins Medicine.
This might be, in part, because SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, directly infects the cells in many organs.
Nicole Bhave, MD, a cardiologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor is concerned that COVID-19 appears to increase the risk of heart problems in some people.
“Some of the uptick may just be recognition bias, in that people with symptoms are seeking care,” she said. “But there’s definitely a biological basis by which COVID could tip people over into a new diagnosis of heart failure.”
Inflammation
Inflammation is probably a key part of the long-term effects of COVID-19.
Some people have a serious immune reaction to COVID-19 called a cytokine storm, said Nitra Aggarwal Gilotra, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine. This release of inflammation-causing molecules called cytokines is meant to attack the invading virus. But it can be so severe that it wreaks havoc on healthy tissues and organs and causes lasting damage – if patients even survive it.
In some people, inflammation can affect the heart, causing myocarditis. Myocarditis symptoms include chest pain, breathlessness, and heart palpitations. Though rare, it can be serious and can raise the risk of other heart problems, including heart failure, down the line.
Long COVID may also trigger an autoimmune condition, said Eline Luning Prak, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Long COVID can share many hallmark symptoms with autoimmune diseases, including fatigue, widespread pain, memory problems, and mood disorders.
Blood clots
Studies have shown the overcharged inflammatory response to COVID-19 can cause blood clots. This sometimes overwhelming clotting was an early hallmark of COVID-19 infection, and when clots restrict blood flow in the brain, lungs, kidneys, or limbs, they can cause long-term damage. Some can be deadly. Researchers in Sweden found patients were at risk of deep vein thrombosis – a blood clot usually in the leg – up to 3 months after infection and at higher risk of a blood clot in the lung, called pulmonary embolism, for as long as 3 months.
Viral reservoirs
The virus itself may also linger in a patient’s body, causing continued symptoms and, potentially, new flare-ups. Zoe Swank, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in a preprint study that they found pieces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the blood of most patients with long COVID symptoms they tested – some as long as a year after infection. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.
Another team found evidence of the virus in stool up to 7 months later, which suggests the virus hides out in the gut. Other early studies have found bits of viral RNA in the appendix, breast tissue, heart, eyes, and brain.
Diabetes
Diabetes is a risk factor for getting severe COVID-19, and multiple studies have shown people can get diabetes both while battling infection and afterward. One study of veterans, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, found COVID-19 survivors were about 40% more likely to get diabetes over the next year.
There are a few ways this might happen. Insulin-producing cells in the pancreas have SARS-CoV-2 receptors – a type of molecular doorway the coronavirus can attach to. Damage to these cells could make the body less able to produce insulin, which in turn can lead to diabetes. The virus could also disrupt the balance in the body or cause inflammation that leads to insulin resistance, which can develop into diabetes, Ziad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues wrote.
Nervous system issues
People who get COVID-19 are also more vulnerable to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). This affects what’s known as the autonomic nervous system, which regulates blood circulation, and includes those things that happen in your body without your having to think about them, like breathing, heartbeat, and digestion. POTS can cause common long COVID neurologic symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and problems thinking and concentrating. “This was a known condition prior to COVID, but it was incredibly rare,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “After COVID, I’ve seen it with increasing frequency.”
Long-term outlook
Lasting issues after COVID-19 are much more likely after a moderate or severe infection. Still, plenty of people are battling them even after a mild illness. “As for why, that’s the billion-dollar question,” said Dr. Horwitz. “It’s well known that viral infections can cause long-term dysregulation. Why that is, we really just don’t know.”
Whether it’s virus hiding out in the body, long-term organ damage, or an autoimmune reaction likely differs from person to person. “I’m believing, increasingly, that it’s a combination of all of these, just based on how different patients are responding to different medications,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “One patient will respond to something beautifully, and another patient won’t at all.”
But it’s clear a significant number of people are facing long-term health struggles because of COVID-19, which has infected at least 580 million people globally and 92 million – likely many more – in the United States, according to Johns Hopkins University.
Even a small increased risk of conditions like heart disease or diabetes translates to a huge number of people, Dr. Horwitz said. “If even 1% of people getting COVID have long-term symptoms, that’s a major public health crisis, because that’s 1% of pretty much everybody in the country.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Physicians’ bad behavior seen at work, online by colleagues: Survey
“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”
But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.
For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.
Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.
“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
Bullying and harassment top bad behavior
When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.
Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.
Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).
Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
Speaking up
Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.
Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.
Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.
“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
Off the job
Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.
Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.
The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.
When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”
Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”
Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”
As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”
But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.
For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.
Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.
“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
Bullying and harassment top bad behavior
When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.
Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.
Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).
Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
Speaking up
Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.
Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.
Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.
“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
Off the job
Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.
Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.
The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.
When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”
Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”
Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”
As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”
But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.
For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.
Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.
“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
Bullying and harassment top bad behavior
When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.
Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.
Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).
Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
Speaking up
Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.
Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.
Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.
“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
Off the job
Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.
Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.
The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.
When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”
Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”
Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”
As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early dementia but no specialists: Reinforcements needed?
Patients in rural areas are also less likely to see psychologists and undergo neuropsychological testing, according to the study, published in JAMA Network Open.
Patients who forgo such specialist visits and testing may be missing information about their condition that could help them prepare for changes in job responsibilities and future care decisions, said Wendy Yi Xu, PhD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, who led the research.
“A lot of them are still in the workforce,” Dr. Xu said. Patients in the study were an average age of 56 years, well before the conventional age of retirement.
Location, location, location
To examine rural versus urban differences in the use of diagnostic tests and health care visits for early onset Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Dr. Xu and colleagues analyzed commercial claims data from 2012-2018. They identified more than 71,000 patients aged 40-64 years with those conditions and focused on health care use by 7,311 patients in urban areas and 1,119 in rural areas within 90 days of a new dementia diagnosis.
The proportion who received neuropsychological testing was 19% among urban patients and 16% among rural patients. Psychological assessments, which are less specialized and detailed than neuropsychological testing, and brain imaging occurred at similar rates in both groups. Similar proportions of rural and urban patients visited neurologists (17.7% and 17.96%, respectively) and psychiatrists (6.02% and 6.47%).
But more urban patients than rural patients visited a psychologist, at 19% versus 15%, according to the researchers.
Approximately 18% of patients in rural areas saw a primary care provider without visiting other specialists, compared with 13% in urban areas.
The researchers found that rural patients were significantly less likely to undergo neuropsychological testing (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98) or see a psychologist (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85).
Similarly, rural patients had significantly higher odds of having only primary care providers involved in the diagnosis of dementia and symptom management (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.19-1.66).
Addressing workforce deficiencies
More primary care training in dementia care and collaboration with specialist colleagues could help address differences in care, Dr. Xu’s group writes. Such efforts are already underway.
In 2018, the Alzheimer’s Association launched telementoring programs focused on dementia care using the Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) model. Researchers originally developed Project ECHO at the University of New Mexico in 2003 to teach primary care clinicians in remote settings how to treat patients infected with the hepatitis C virus.
With the Alzheimer’s and Dementia Care ECHO Program for Clinicians, primary care clinicians can participate in interactive case-based video conferencing sessions to better understand dementia and how to provide high-quality care in community settings, according to the association.
The program covers guidelines for diagnosis, disclosure, and follow-up; the initiation of care planning; managing disease-related challenges; and resources for patients and caregivers.
Since 2018, nearly 100 primary care practices in the United States have completed training in dementia care using Project ECHO, said Morgan Daven, vice president of health systems for the Alzheimer’s Association. Many cases featured in the program are challenging, he added.
“With primary care being on the front lines, it is really important that primary care physicians are equipped to do what they can to detect or diagnose and know when to refer,” Mr. Daven said.
The association has compiled other resources for clinicians as well.
A 2020 report from the association examined the role that primary care physicians play in dementia care. One survey found that 82% of primary care physicians consider themselves on the front lines of providing care for patients with dementia.
Meanwhile, about half say medical professionals are not prepared to meet rising demands associated with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia care.
Mr. Daven said the geographic disparities Dr. Xu and colleagues found are unsurprising. More than half of primary care physicians who care for people with Alzheimer’s disease say dementia specialists in their communities cannot meet demand. The problem is more urgent in rural areas. Roughly half of nonmetropolitan counties in the United States lack a practicing psychologist, according to a 2018 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
“We really need to approach this on both sides – build the capacity in primary care, but we also need to address the dementia care specialty shortages,” Mr. Daven said.
The lack of obvious differences in access to neurologists in the new study “was surprising, given the more than fourfold difference between urban and rural areas in the supply of neurologists,” the researchers note. Health plans may maintain more access to neurologists than psychologists because of relatively higher reimbursement for neurologists, they observed.
One of the study coauthors disclosed ties to Aveanna Healthcare, a company that delivers home health and hospice care.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients in rural areas are also less likely to see psychologists and undergo neuropsychological testing, according to the study, published in JAMA Network Open.
Patients who forgo such specialist visits and testing may be missing information about their condition that could help them prepare for changes in job responsibilities and future care decisions, said Wendy Yi Xu, PhD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, who led the research.
“A lot of them are still in the workforce,” Dr. Xu said. Patients in the study were an average age of 56 years, well before the conventional age of retirement.
Location, location, location
To examine rural versus urban differences in the use of diagnostic tests and health care visits for early onset Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Dr. Xu and colleagues analyzed commercial claims data from 2012-2018. They identified more than 71,000 patients aged 40-64 years with those conditions and focused on health care use by 7,311 patients in urban areas and 1,119 in rural areas within 90 days of a new dementia diagnosis.
The proportion who received neuropsychological testing was 19% among urban patients and 16% among rural patients. Psychological assessments, which are less specialized and detailed than neuropsychological testing, and brain imaging occurred at similar rates in both groups. Similar proportions of rural and urban patients visited neurologists (17.7% and 17.96%, respectively) and psychiatrists (6.02% and 6.47%).
But more urban patients than rural patients visited a psychologist, at 19% versus 15%, according to the researchers.
Approximately 18% of patients in rural areas saw a primary care provider without visiting other specialists, compared with 13% in urban areas.
The researchers found that rural patients were significantly less likely to undergo neuropsychological testing (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98) or see a psychologist (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85).
Similarly, rural patients had significantly higher odds of having only primary care providers involved in the diagnosis of dementia and symptom management (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.19-1.66).
Addressing workforce deficiencies
More primary care training in dementia care and collaboration with specialist colleagues could help address differences in care, Dr. Xu’s group writes. Such efforts are already underway.
In 2018, the Alzheimer’s Association launched telementoring programs focused on dementia care using the Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) model. Researchers originally developed Project ECHO at the University of New Mexico in 2003 to teach primary care clinicians in remote settings how to treat patients infected with the hepatitis C virus.
With the Alzheimer’s and Dementia Care ECHO Program for Clinicians, primary care clinicians can participate in interactive case-based video conferencing sessions to better understand dementia and how to provide high-quality care in community settings, according to the association.
The program covers guidelines for diagnosis, disclosure, and follow-up; the initiation of care planning; managing disease-related challenges; and resources for patients and caregivers.
Since 2018, nearly 100 primary care practices in the United States have completed training in dementia care using Project ECHO, said Morgan Daven, vice president of health systems for the Alzheimer’s Association. Many cases featured in the program are challenging, he added.
“With primary care being on the front lines, it is really important that primary care physicians are equipped to do what they can to detect or diagnose and know when to refer,” Mr. Daven said.
The association has compiled other resources for clinicians as well.
A 2020 report from the association examined the role that primary care physicians play in dementia care. One survey found that 82% of primary care physicians consider themselves on the front lines of providing care for patients with dementia.
Meanwhile, about half say medical professionals are not prepared to meet rising demands associated with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia care.
Mr. Daven said the geographic disparities Dr. Xu and colleagues found are unsurprising. More than half of primary care physicians who care for people with Alzheimer’s disease say dementia specialists in their communities cannot meet demand. The problem is more urgent in rural areas. Roughly half of nonmetropolitan counties in the United States lack a practicing psychologist, according to a 2018 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
“We really need to approach this on both sides – build the capacity in primary care, but we also need to address the dementia care specialty shortages,” Mr. Daven said.
The lack of obvious differences in access to neurologists in the new study “was surprising, given the more than fourfold difference between urban and rural areas in the supply of neurologists,” the researchers note. Health plans may maintain more access to neurologists than psychologists because of relatively higher reimbursement for neurologists, they observed.
One of the study coauthors disclosed ties to Aveanna Healthcare, a company that delivers home health and hospice care.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients in rural areas are also less likely to see psychologists and undergo neuropsychological testing, according to the study, published in JAMA Network Open.
Patients who forgo such specialist visits and testing may be missing information about their condition that could help them prepare for changes in job responsibilities and future care decisions, said Wendy Yi Xu, PhD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, who led the research.
“A lot of them are still in the workforce,” Dr. Xu said. Patients in the study were an average age of 56 years, well before the conventional age of retirement.
Location, location, location
To examine rural versus urban differences in the use of diagnostic tests and health care visits for early onset Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Dr. Xu and colleagues analyzed commercial claims data from 2012-2018. They identified more than 71,000 patients aged 40-64 years with those conditions and focused on health care use by 7,311 patients in urban areas and 1,119 in rural areas within 90 days of a new dementia diagnosis.
The proportion who received neuropsychological testing was 19% among urban patients and 16% among rural patients. Psychological assessments, which are less specialized and detailed than neuropsychological testing, and brain imaging occurred at similar rates in both groups. Similar proportions of rural and urban patients visited neurologists (17.7% and 17.96%, respectively) and psychiatrists (6.02% and 6.47%).
But more urban patients than rural patients visited a psychologist, at 19% versus 15%, according to the researchers.
Approximately 18% of patients in rural areas saw a primary care provider without visiting other specialists, compared with 13% in urban areas.
The researchers found that rural patients were significantly less likely to undergo neuropsychological testing (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98) or see a psychologist (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85).
Similarly, rural patients had significantly higher odds of having only primary care providers involved in the diagnosis of dementia and symptom management (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.19-1.66).
Addressing workforce deficiencies
More primary care training in dementia care and collaboration with specialist colleagues could help address differences in care, Dr. Xu’s group writes. Such efforts are already underway.
In 2018, the Alzheimer’s Association launched telementoring programs focused on dementia care using the Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) model. Researchers originally developed Project ECHO at the University of New Mexico in 2003 to teach primary care clinicians in remote settings how to treat patients infected with the hepatitis C virus.
With the Alzheimer’s and Dementia Care ECHO Program for Clinicians, primary care clinicians can participate in interactive case-based video conferencing sessions to better understand dementia and how to provide high-quality care in community settings, according to the association.
The program covers guidelines for diagnosis, disclosure, and follow-up; the initiation of care planning; managing disease-related challenges; and resources for patients and caregivers.
Since 2018, nearly 100 primary care practices in the United States have completed training in dementia care using Project ECHO, said Morgan Daven, vice president of health systems for the Alzheimer’s Association. Many cases featured in the program are challenging, he added.
“With primary care being on the front lines, it is really important that primary care physicians are equipped to do what they can to detect or diagnose and know when to refer,” Mr. Daven said.
The association has compiled other resources for clinicians as well.
A 2020 report from the association examined the role that primary care physicians play in dementia care. One survey found that 82% of primary care physicians consider themselves on the front lines of providing care for patients with dementia.
Meanwhile, about half say medical professionals are not prepared to meet rising demands associated with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia care.
Mr. Daven said the geographic disparities Dr. Xu and colleagues found are unsurprising. More than half of primary care physicians who care for people with Alzheimer’s disease say dementia specialists in their communities cannot meet demand. The problem is more urgent in rural areas. Roughly half of nonmetropolitan counties in the United States lack a practicing psychologist, according to a 2018 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
“We really need to approach this on both sides – build the capacity in primary care, but we also need to address the dementia care specialty shortages,” Mr. Daven said.
The lack of obvious differences in access to neurologists in the new study “was surprising, given the more than fourfold difference between urban and rural areas in the supply of neurologists,” the researchers note. Health plans may maintain more access to neurologists than psychologists because of relatively higher reimbursement for neurologists, they observed.
One of the study coauthors disclosed ties to Aveanna Healthcare, a company that delivers home health and hospice care.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
At 100, Guinness’s oldest practicing doctor shows no signs of slowing down
In the same year that Howard Tucker, MD, began practicing neurology, the average loaf of bread cost 13 cents, the microwave oven became commercially available, and Jackie Robinson took the field for the Brooklyn Dodgers as the first Black person to play Major League Baseball.
Since 1947, Dr. Tucker has witnessed major changes in health care, from President Harry S. Truman proposing a national health care plan to Congress to the current day, when patients carry their digital records around with them.
Dr. Tucker has been a resident of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, since 1922, the year he was born.
After graduating high school in 1940, Dr. Tucker attended Ohio State University, Columbus, where he received his undergraduate and medical degrees. During the Korean War, he served as chief neurologist for the Atlantic fleet at a U.S. Naval Hospital in Philadelphia. Following the war, he completed his residency at the Cleveland Clinic and trained at the Neurological Institute of New York.
Dr. Tucker chose to return to Cleveland, where he practiced at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Hillcrest Hospital for several decades.
Not content with just a medical degree, at the age of 67, Dr. Tucker attended Cleveland State University Cleveland Marshall College of Law. In 1989, he received his Juris Doctor degree and passed the Ohio bar examination.
And as if that weren’t enough career accomplishments, Guinness World Records dubbed him the world’s oldest practicing doctor at 98 years and 231 days. Dr. Tucker continues to practice into his 100th year. He celebrated his birthday in July.
Owing to the compelling and inspiring nature of his upbringing, Dr. Tucker has become the subject of a feature documentary film entitled “What’s Next?” The film is currently in production. It is being produced by his grandson, Austin Tucker, and is directed by Taylor Taglianetti.
This news organization recently spoke with Dr. Tucker about his life’s work in medicine.
Question: Why did you choose neurology?
Dr. Tucker: Well, I think I was just fascinated with medicine from about the seventh or eighth grade. I chose my specialty because it was a very cerebral one in those days. It was an intellectual pursuit. It was before the CAT scan, and you had to work hard to make a diagnosis. You even had to look at the spinal fluid. You had to look at EEGs, and it was a very detailed history taking.
Question: How has neurology changed since you started practicing?
Dr. Tucker: The MRI came in, so we don’t have to use spinal taps anymore. Lumbar puncture fluid and EEG aren’t needed as often either. Now we use EEG for convulsive disorders, but rarely when we suspect tumors like we used to. Also, when I was in med school, they said to use Dilaudid; don’t use morphine. And now, you can’t even find Dilaudin in emergency rooms anymore.
Question: How has medicine overall changed since you started practicing?
Dr. Tucker: Computers have made everything a different specialty.
In the old days, we would see a patient, call the referring doctor, and discuss [the case] with them in a very pleasant way. Now, when you call a doctor, he’ll say to you, “Let me read your note,” and that’s the end of it. He doesn’t want to talk to you. Medicine has changed dramatically.
It used to be a very warm relationship between you and your patients. You looked at your patient, you studied their expressions, and now you look at the screen and very rarely look at the patient.
Question: Why do you still enjoy practicing medicine?
Dr. Tucker: The challenge, the excitement of patients, and now I’m doing a lot of teaching, and I do love that part, too.
I teach neurology to residents and medical students that rotate through. When I retired from the Cleveland Clinic, 2 months of retirement was too much for me, so I went back to St. Vincent. It’s a smaller hospital but still has good residents and good teaching.
Question: What lessons do you teach to your residents?
Dr. Tucker: I ask my residents and physicians to think through a problem before they look at the CAT scan and imaging studies. Think through it, then you’ll know what questions you want to ask specifically before you even examine the patient, know exactly what you are going to find.
The complete neurological examination, aside from taking the history and checking mental status, is 5 minutes. You have them walk, check for excessive finger tapping, have them touch their nose, check their reflexes, check their strength – it’s over. That doesn’t take much time if you know what you’re looking for.
Residents say to me all the time, “55-year-old man, CAT scan shows ...” I have to say to them: “Slow down. Let’s talk about this first.”
Question: What advice do you have for physicians and medical students?
Dr. Tucker: Take a very careful history. Know the course of the illness. Make sure you have a diagnosis in your head and, specifically for medical residents, ask questions. You have to be smarter than the patients are, you have to know what to ask.
If someone hits their head on their steering wheel, they don’t know that they’ve lost their sense of smell. You have to ask that specifically, hence, why you have to be smarter than they are. Take a careful history before you do imaging studies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the same year that Howard Tucker, MD, began practicing neurology, the average loaf of bread cost 13 cents, the microwave oven became commercially available, and Jackie Robinson took the field for the Brooklyn Dodgers as the first Black person to play Major League Baseball.
Since 1947, Dr. Tucker has witnessed major changes in health care, from President Harry S. Truman proposing a national health care plan to Congress to the current day, when patients carry their digital records around with them.
Dr. Tucker has been a resident of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, since 1922, the year he was born.
After graduating high school in 1940, Dr. Tucker attended Ohio State University, Columbus, where he received his undergraduate and medical degrees. During the Korean War, he served as chief neurologist for the Atlantic fleet at a U.S. Naval Hospital in Philadelphia. Following the war, he completed his residency at the Cleveland Clinic and trained at the Neurological Institute of New York.
Dr. Tucker chose to return to Cleveland, where he practiced at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Hillcrest Hospital for several decades.
Not content with just a medical degree, at the age of 67, Dr. Tucker attended Cleveland State University Cleveland Marshall College of Law. In 1989, he received his Juris Doctor degree and passed the Ohio bar examination.
And as if that weren’t enough career accomplishments, Guinness World Records dubbed him the world’s oldest practicing doctor at 98 years and 231 days. Dr. Tucker continues to practice into his 100th year. He celebrated his birthday in July.
Owing to the compelling and inspiring nature of his upbringing, Dr. Tucker has become the subject of a feature documentary film entitled “What’s Next?” The film is currently in production. It is being produced by his grandson, Austin Tucker, and is directed by Taylor Taglianetti.
This news organization recently spoke with Dr. Tucker about his life’s work in medicine.
Question: Why did you choose neurology?
Dr. Tucker: Well, I think I was just fascinated with medicine from about the seventh or eighth grade. I chose my specialty because it was a very cerebral one in those days. It was an intellectual pursuit. It was before the CAT scan, and you had to work hard to make a diagnosis. You even had to look at the spinal fluid. You had to look at EEGs, and it was a very detailed history taking.
Question: How has neurology changed since you started practicing?
Dr. Tucker: The MRI came in, so we don’t have to use spinal taps anymore. Lumbar puncture fluid and EEG aren’t needed as often either. Now we use EEG for convulsive disorders, but rarely when we suspect tumors like we used to. Also, when I was in med school, they said to use Dilaudid; don’t use morphine. And now, you can’t even find Dilaudin in emergency rooms anymore.
Question: How has medicine overall changed since you started practicing?
Dr. Tucker: Computers have made everything a different specialty.
In the old days, we would see a patient, call the referring doctor, and discuss [the case] with them in a very pleasant way. Now, when you call a doctor, he’ll say to you, “Let me read your note,” and that’s the end of it. He doesn’t want to talk to you. Medicine has changed dramatically.
It used to be a very warm relationship between you and your patients. You looked at your patient, you studied their expressions, and now you look at the screen and very rarely look at the patient.
Question: Why do you still enjoy practicing medicine?
Dr. Tucker: The challenge, the excitement of patients, and now I’m doing a lot of teaching, and I do love that part, too.
I teach neurology to residents and medical students that rotate through. When I retired from the Cleveland Clinic, 2 months of retirement was too much for me, so I went back to St. Vincent. It’s a smaller hospital but still has good residents and good teaching.
Question: What lessons do you teach to your residents?
Dr. Tucker: I ask my residents and physicians to think through a problem before they look at the CAT scan and imaging studies. Think through it, then you’ll know what questions you want to ask specifically before you even examine the patient, know exactly what you are going to find.
The complete neurological examination, aside from taking the history and checking mental status, is 5 minutes. You have them walk, check for excessive finger tapping, have them touch their nose, check their reflexes, check their strength – it’s over. That doesn’t take much time if you know what you’re looking for.
Residents say to me all the time, “55-year-old man, CAT scan shows ...” I have to say to them: “Slow down. Let’s talk about this first.”
Question: What advice do you have for physicians and medical students?
Dr. Tucker: Take a very careful history. Know the course of the illness. Make sure you have a diagnosis in your head and, specifically for medical residents, ask questions. You have to be smarter than the patients are, you have to know what to ask.
If someone hits their head on their steering wheel, they don’t know that they’ve lost their sense of smell. You have to ask that specifically, hence, why you have to be smarter than they are. Take a careful history before you do imaging studies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the same year that Howard Tucker, MD, began practicing neurology, the average loaf of bread cost 13 cents, the microwave oven became commercially available, and Jackie Robinson took the field for the Brooklyn Dodgers as the first Black person to play Major League Baseball.
Since 1947, Dr. Tucker has witnessed major changes in health care, from President Harry S. Truman proposing a national health care plan to Congress to the current day, when patients carry their digital records around with them.
Dr. Tucker has been a resident of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, since 1922, the year he was born.
After graduating high school in 1940, Dr. Tucker attended Ohio State University, Columbus, where he received his undergraduate and medical degrees. During the Korean War, he served as chief neurologist for the Atlantic fleet at a U.S. Naval Hospital in Philadelphia. Following the war, he completed his residency at the Cleveland Clinic and trained at the Neurological Institute of New York.
Dr. Tucker chose to return to Cleveland, where he practiced at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Hillcrest Hospital for several decades.
Not content with just a medical degree, at the age of 67, Dr. Tucker attended Cleveland State University Cleveland Marshall College of Law. In 1989, he received his Juris Doctor degree and passed the Ohio bar examination.
And as if that weren’t enough career accomplishments, Guinness World Records dubbed him the world’s oldest practicing doctor at 98 years and 231 days. Dr. Tucker continues to practice into his 100th year. He celebrated his birthday in July.
Owing to the compelling and inspiring nature of his upbringing, Dr. Tucker has become the subject of a feature documentary film entitled “What’s Next?” The film is currently in production. It is being produced by his grandson, Austin Tucker, and is directed by Taylor Taglianetti.
This news organization recently spoke with Dr. Tucker about his life’s work in medicine.
Question: Why did you choose neurology?
Dr. Tucker: Well, I think I was just fascinated with medicine from about the seventh or eighth grade. I chose my specialty because it was a very cerebral one in those days. It was an intellectual pursuit. It was before the CAT scan, and you had to work hard to make a diagnosis. You even had to look at the spinal fluid. You had to look at EEGs, and it was a very detailed history taking.
Question: How has neurology changed since you started practicing?
Dr. Tucker: The MRI came in, so we don’t have to use spinal taps anymore. Lumbar puncture fluid and EEG aren’t needed as often either. Now we use EEG for convulsive disorders, but rarely when we suspect tumors like we used to. Also, when I was in med school, they said to use Dilaudid; don’t use morphine. And now, you can’t even find Dilaudin in emergency rooms anymore.
Question: How has medicine overall changed since you started practicing?
Dr. Tucker: Computers have made everything a different specialty.
In the old days, we would see a patient, call the referring doctor, and discuss [the case] with them in a very pleasant way. Now, when you call a doctor, he’ll say to you, “Let me read your note,” and that’s the end of it. He doesn’t want to talk to you. Medicine has changed dramatically.
It used to be a very warm relationship between you and your patients. You looked at your patient, you studied their expressions, and now you look at the screen and very rarely look at the patient.
Question: Why do you still enjoy practicing medicine?
Dr. Tucker: The challenge, the excitement of patients, and now I’m doing a lot of teaching, and I do love that part, too.
I teach neurology to residents and medical students that rotate through. When I retired from the Cleveland Clinic, 2 months of retirement was too much for me, so I went back to St. Vincent. It’s a smaller hospital but still has good residents and good teaching.
Question: What lessons do you teach to your residents?
Dr. Tucker: I ask my residents and physicians to think through a problem before they look at the CAT scan and imaging studies. Think through it, then you’ll know what questions you want to ask specifically before you even examine the patient, know exactly what you are going to find.
The complete neurological examination, aside from taking the history and checking mental status, is 5 minutes. You have them walk, check for excessive finger tapping, have them touch their nose, check their reflexes, check their strength – it’s over. That doesn’t take much time if you know what you’re looking for.
Residents say to me all the time, “55-year-old man, CAT scan shows ...” I have to say to them: “Slow down. Let’s talk about this first.”
Question: What advice do you have for physicians and medical students?
Dr. Tucker: Take a very careful history. Know the course of the illness. Make sure you have a diagnosis in your head and, specifically for medical residents, ask questions. You have to be smarter than the patients are, you have to know what to ask.
If someone hits their head on their steering wheel, they don’t know that they’ve lost their sense of smell. You have to ask that specifically, hence, why you have to be smarter than they are. Take a careful history before you do imaging studies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Primary care now offering physicians the 26.7-hour day
Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights
It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.
A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.
Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …
Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.
The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest
Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.
A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.
“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.
The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.
For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.
Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side
Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?
Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.
“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.
For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.
The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”
The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?
COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?
Yes and no.
A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.
Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.
Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.
But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.
So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.
Music to our ears.
Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights
It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.
A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.
Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …
Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.
The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest
Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.
A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.
“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.
The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.
For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.
Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side
Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?
Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.
“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.
For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.
The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”
The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?
COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?
Yes and no.
A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.
Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.
Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.
But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.
So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.
Music to our ears.
Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights
It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.
A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.
Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …
Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.
The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest
Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.
A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.
“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.
The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.
For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.
Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side
Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?
Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.
“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.
For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.
The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”
The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?
COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?
Yes and no.
A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.
Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.
Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.
But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.
So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.
Music to our ears.
Mechanistic link between herpes virus, Alzheimer’s revealed?
, new research suggests.
“Our results suggest one pathway to Alzheimer’s disease, caused by a VZV infection which creates inflammatory triggers that awaken HSV in the brain,” lead author Dana Cairns, PhD, research associate, department of biomedical engineering at Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.
The findings were published online in Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
‘One-two punch’
Previous research has suggested a correlation between HSV-1 and AD and involvement of VZV. However, the sequence of events that the viruses create to set the disease in motion has been unclear.
“We think we now have evidence of those events,” co–senior author David Kaplan, PhD, chair of the department of biomedical engineering at Tufts, said in the release.
Working with co–senior author Ruth Itzhaki, PhD, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, the researchers infected human-induced neural stem cells (hiNSCs) and 3D brain tissue models with HSV-1 and/or VZV. Dr. Itzhaki was one of the first to hypothesize a connection between herpes virus and AD.
The investigators found that HSV-1 infection of hiNSCs induces amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation: the main components of AD plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, respectively.
On the other hand, VZV infection of cultured hiNSCs did not lead to amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation but instead resulted in gliosis and increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines.
“Strikingly,” VZV infection of cells quiescently infected with HSV-1 caused reactivation of HSV-1, leading to AD-like changes, including amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation, the investigators report.
This suggests that VZV is unlikely to be a direct cause of AD but rather acts indirectly via reactivation of HSV-1, they add.
Similar findings emerged in similar experiments using 3D human brain tissue models.
“It’s a one-two punch of two viruses that are very common and usually harmless, but the lab studies suggest that if a new exposure to VZV wakes up dormant HSV-1, they could cause trouble,” Dr. Cairns said.
The researchers note that vaccination against VZV has been shown previously to reduce risk for dementia. It is possible, they add, that the vaccine is helping to stop the cycle of viral reactivation, inflammation, and neuronal damage.
‘A first step’
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said that the study “is using artificial systems with the goal of more clearly and more deeply understanding” the assessed associations.
She added that although it is a first step, it may provide valuable direction for follow-up research.
“This is preliminary work that first needs replication, validation, and further development to understand if any association that is uncovered between viruses and Alzheimer’s/dementia has a mechanistic link,” said Dr. Snyder.
She noted that several past studies have sought to help the research field better understand the links between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.
“There have been some challenges in evaluating these associations in our current model systems or in individuals for a number of reasons,” said Dr. Snyder.
However, “the COVID-19 pandemic has created an opportunity to examine and investigate the relationships between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other dementias by following individuals in more common and well-established ways,” she added.
She reported that her organization is “leading and working with a large global network of studies and investigators to address some of these questions” from during and after the COVID pandemic.
“The lessons we learn and share may inform our understanding of how other viruses are, or are not, connected to Alzheimer’s and other dementia,” Dr. Snyder said.
More information on the Alzheimer’s Association International Cohort Study of Chronic Neurological Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 is available online.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cairns, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Itzhaki, and Dr. Snyder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
“Our results suggest one pathway to Alzheimer’s disease, caused by a VZV infection which creates inflammatory triggers that awaken HSV in the brain,” lead author Dana Cairns, PhD, research associate, department of biomedical engineering at Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.
The findings were published online in Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
‘One-two punch’
Previous research has suggested a correlation between HSV-1 and AD and involvement of VZV. However, the sequence of events that the viruses create to set the disease in motion has been unclear.
“We think we now have evidence of those events,” co–senior author David Kaplan, PhD, chair of the department of biomedical engineering at Tufts, said in the release.
Working with co–senior author Ruth Itzhaki, PhD, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, the researchers infected human-induced neural stem cells (hiNSCs) and 3D brain tissue models with HSV-1 and/or VZV. Dr. Itzhaki was one of the first to hypothesize a connection between herpes virus and AD.
The investigators found that HSV-1 infection of hiNSCs induces amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation: the main components of AD plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, respectively.
On the other hand, VZV infection of cultured hiNSCs did not lead to amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation but instead resulted in gliosis and increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines.
“Strikingly,” VZV infection of cells quiescently infected with HSV-1 caused reactivation of HSV-1, leading to AD-like changes, including amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation, the investigators report.
This suggests that VZV is unlikely to be a direct cause of AD but rather acts indirectly via reactivation of HSV-1, they add.
Similar findings emerged in similar experiments using 3D human brain tissue models.
“It’s a one-two punch of two viruses that are very common and usually harmless, but the lab studies suggest that if a new exposure to VZV wakes up dormant HSV-1, they could cause trouble,” Dr. Cairns said.
The researchers note that vaccination against VZV has been shown previously to reduce risk for dementia. It is possible, they add, that the vaccine is helping to stop the cycle of viral reactivation, inflammation, and neuronal damage.
‘A first step’
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said that the study “is using artificial systems with the goal of more clearly and more deeply understanding” the assessed associations.
She added that although it is a first step, it may provide valuable direction for follow-up research.
“This is preliminary work that first needs replication, validation, and further development to understand if any association that is uncovered between viruses and Alzheimer’s/dementia has a mechanistic link,” said Dr. Snyder.
She noted that several past studies have sought to help the research field better understand the links between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.
“There have been some challenges in evaluating these associations in our current model systems or in individuals for a number of reasons,” said Dr. Snyder.
However, “the COVID-19 pandemic has created an opportunity to examine and investigate the relationships between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other dementias by following individuals in more common and well-established ways,” she added.
She reported that her organization is “leading and working with a large global network of studies and investigators to address some of these questions” from during and after the COVID pandemic.
“The lessons we learn and share may inform our understanding of how other viruses are, or are not, connected to Alzheimer’s and other dementia,” Dr. Snyder said.
More information on the Alzheimer’s Association International Cohort Study of Chronic Neurological Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 is available online.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cairns, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Itzhaki, and Dr. Snyder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
“Our results suggest one pathway to Alzheimer’s disease, caused by a VZV infection which creates inflammatory triggers that awaken HSV in the brain,” lead author Dana Cairns, PhD, research associate, department of biomedical engineering at Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.
The findings were published online in Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
‘One-two punch’
Previous research has suggested a correlation between HSV-1 and AD and involvement of VZV. However, the sequence of events that the viruses create to set the disease in motion has been unclear.
“We think we now have evidence of those events,” co–senior author David Kaplan, PhD, chair of the department of biomedical engineering at Tufts, said in the release.
Working with co–senior author Ruth Itzhaki, PhD, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, the researchers infected human-induced neural stem cells (hiNSCs) and 3D brain tissue models with HSV-1 and/or VZV. Dr. Itzhaki was one of the first to hypothesize a connection between herpes virus and AD.
The investigators found that HSV-1 infection of hiNSCs induces amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation: the main components of AD plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, respectively.
On the other hand, VZV infection of cultured hiNSCs did not lead to amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation but instead resulted in gliosis and increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines.
“Strikingly,” VZV infection of cells quiescently infected with HSV-1 caused reactivation of HSV-1, leading to AD-like changes, including amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation, the investigators report.
This suggests that VZV is unlikely to be a direct cause of AD but rather acts indirectly via reactivation of HSV-1, they add.
Similar findings emerged in similar experiments using 3D human brain tissue models.
“It’s a one-two punch of two viruses that are very common and usually harmless, but the lab studies suggest that if a new exposure to VZV wakes up dormant HSV-1, they could cause trouble,” Dr. Cairns said.
The researchers note that vaccination against VZV has been shown previously to reduce risk for dementia. It is possible, they add, that the vaccine is helping to stop the cycle of viral reactivation, inflammation, and neuronal damage.
‘A first step’
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said that the study “is using artificial systems with the goal of more clearly and more deeply understanding” the assessed associations.
She added that although it is a first step, it may provide valuable direction for follow-up research.
“This is preliminary work that first needs replication, validation, and further development to understand if any association that is uncovered between viruses and Alzheimer’s/dementia has a mechanistic link,” said Dr. Snyder.
She noted that several past studies have sought to help the research field better understand the links between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.
“There have been some challenges in evaluating these associations in our current model systems or in individuals for a number of reasons,” said Dr. Snyder.
However, “the COVID-19 pandemic has created an opportunity to examine and investigate the relationships between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other dementias by following individuals in more common and well-established ways,” she added.
She reported that her organization is “leading and working with a large global network of studies and investigators to address some of these questions” from during and after the COVID pandemic.
“The lessons we learn and share may inform our understanding of how other viruses are, or are not, connected to Alzheimer’s and other dementia,” Dr. Snyder said.
More information on the Alzheimer’s Association International Cohort Study of Chronic Neurological Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 is available online.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cairns, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Itzhaki, and Dr. Snyder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE
Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks improve fracture pain
results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.
With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.
“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.
Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.
Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.
“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.
To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.
The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.
Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).
Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).
Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.
Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.
“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.
Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.
No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.
However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.
“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible
Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.
Stephen C. Haskins, MD, a coauthor on that study, said that the low utilization underscores that, in real-world practice, an ultrasound-guided approach isn’t always convenient.
“I think our findings demonstrate a common misconception that exists for those of us that work at academic institutions and/or within the ivory towers of regional anesthesia, which is that everyone is performing cutting edge ultrasound-guided techniques for all procedures,” Dr. Haskins, an associate attending anesthesiologist and chief medical diversity officer with the department of anesthesiology, critical care & pain management at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
However, “there are many limitations to use of ultrasound for these blocks, including limited access to machines, limited access to training, and limited interest and support from our surgical colleagues,” he explained.
“Ultimately, the best nerve block is the one performed in a timely and successful fashion, regardless of technique,” he said. “But we will continue to see a trend towards ultrasound use in the future due to increasing access in the form of portability and affordability.”
Haskins noted that newer ultrasound-guided nerve blocks that were not reviewed in the study, such as the pericapsular nerve group block, regional block, and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which provide additional benefits such as avoiding quadriceps weakness.
Jeff Gadsden, MD, chief of the orthopedics, plastic, and regional anesthesiology division at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed, noting that much has changed since some of the older studies in the analysis, that date back to 2010.
“A fascia iliaca block done in 2022 looks a lot different than it did in 2012, and we would expect it to be more consistent, reliable and longer-lasting with current techniques and technology,” he said in an interview. “So, if anything, I would expect the findings of this analysis to undersell the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks in this population.”
Although the quality of evidence in the meta-analysis is described as “low,” the downsides of the procedures are few, and “the potential benefits [of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks] are just too good to ignore,” Dr. Gadsden emphasized.
“If we can avoid or reduce opioids in this population and at the same time reduce the acute pain from the injury, there is no question that the incidence of delirium will go down,” he said. “Delirium is associated with a number of poor outcomes following hip fracture, including increased mortality.
“The bottom line is that the risk/benefit ratio is so far in favor of performing the blocks that even in the face of ‘modest’ levels of evidence, we should all be doing these.”
The authors, Dr. Haskins, and Dr. Gadsden had no disclosures relating to the study to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.
With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.
“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.
Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.
Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.
“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.
To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.
The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.
Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).
Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).
Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.
Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.
“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.
Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.
No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.
However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.
“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible
Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.
Stephen C. Haskins, MD, a coauthor on that study, said that the low utilization underscores that, in real-world practice, an ultrasound-guided approach isn’t always convenient.
“I think our findings demonstrate a common misconception that exists for those of us that work at academic institutions and/or within the ivory towers of regional anesthesia, which is that everyone is performing cutting edge ultrasound-guided techniques for all procedures,” Dr. Haskins, an associate attending anesthesiologist and chief medical diversity officer with the department of anesthesiology, critical care & pain management at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
However, “there are many limitations to use of ultrasound for these blocks, including limited access to machines, limited access to training, and limited interest and support from our surgical colleagues,” he explained.
“Ultimately, the best nerve block is the one performed in a timely and successful fashion, regardless of technique,” he said. “But we will continue to see a trend towards ultrasound use in the future due to increasing access in the form of portability and affordability.”
Haskins noted that newer ultrasound-guided nerve blocks that were not reviewed in the study, such as the pericapsular nerve group block, regional block, and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which provide additional benefits such as avoiding quadriceps weakness.
Jeff Gadsden, MD, chief of the orthopedics, plastic, and regional anesthesiology division at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed, noting that much has changed since some of the older studies in the analysis, that date back to 2010.
“A fascia iliaca block done in 2022 looks a lot different than it did in 2012, and we would expect it to be more consistent, reliable and longer-lasting with current techniques and technology,” he said in an interview. “So, if anything, I would expect the findings of this analysis to undersell the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks in this population.”
Although the quality of evidence in the meta-analysis is described as “low,” the downsides of the procedures are few, and “the potential benefits [of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks] are just too good to ignore,” Dr. Gadsden emphasized.
“If we can avoid or reduce opioids in this population and at the same time reduce the acute pain from the injury, there is no question that the incidence of delirium will go down,” he said. “Delirium is associated with a number of poor outcomes following hip fracture, including increased mortality.
“The bottom line is that the risk/benefit ratio is so far in favor of performing the blocks that even in the face of ‘modest’ levels of evidence, we should all be doing these.”
The authors, Dr. Haskins, and Dr. Gadsden had no disclosures relating to the study to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.
With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.
“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.
Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.
Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.
“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.
To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.
The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.
Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).
Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).
Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.
Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.
“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.
Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.
No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.
However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.
“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible
Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.
Stephen C. Haskins, MD, a coauthor on that study, said that the low utilization underscores that, in real-world practice, an ultrasound-guided approach isn’t always convenient.
“I think our findings demonstrate a common misconception that exists for those of us that work at academic institutions and/or within the ivory towers of regional anesthesia, which is that everyone is performing cutting edge ultrasound-guided techniques for all procedures,” Dr. Haskins, an associate attending anesthesiologist and chief medical diversity officer with the department of anesthesiology, critical care & pain management at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
However, “there are many limitations to use of ultrasound for these blocks, including limited access to machines, limited access to training, and limited interest and support from our surgical colleagues,” he explained.
“Ultimately, the best nerve block is the one performed in a timely and successful fashion, regardless of technique,” he said. “But we will continue to see a trend towards ultrasound use in the future due to increasing access in the form of portability and affordability.”
Haskins noted that newer ultrasound-guided nerve blocks that were not reviewed in the study, such as the pericapsular nerve group block, regional block, and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which provide additional benefits such as avoiding quadriceps weakness.
Jeff Gadsden, MD, chief of the orthopedics, plastic, and regional anesthesiology division at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed, noting that much has changed since some of the older studies in the analysis, that date back to 2010.
“A fascia iliaca block done in 2022 looks a lot different than it did in 2012, and we would expect it to be more consistent, reliable and longer-lasting with current techniques and technology,” he said in an interview. “So, if anything, I would expect the findings of this analysis to undersell the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks in this population.”
Although the quality of evidence in the meta-analysis is described as “low,” the downsides of the procedures are few, and “the potential benefits [of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks] are just too good to ignore,” Dr. Gadsden emphasized.
“If we can avoid or reduce opioids in this population and at the same time reduce the acute pain from the injury, there is no question that the incidence of delirium will go down,” he said. “Delirium is associated with a number of poor outcomes following hip fracture, including increased mortality.
“The bottom line is that the risk/benefit ratio is so far in favor of performing the blocks that even in the face of ‘modest’ levels of evidence, we should all be doing these.”
The authors, Dr. Haskins, and Dr. Gadsden had no disclosures relating to the study to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY