Neurology Reviews

SAN DIEGO — A new analysis of patients with new daily persistent headache (NDPH) lends insight into the condition and provides some hints as to some of the more effective treatments, including some calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors.

“There’s just not a lot [of information] about these patients,” Mark Burish, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at UT Houston, said in an interview. He presented the results of the survey at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

There have been some retrospective analyses of patient data, but that has a lot of potential for bias. “It’s only the patients who can afford to be there, and who needed those treatments, and so we want to do more of a general survey,” said Dr. Burish.

The results weren’t particularly surprising, and tended to reaffirm what was known anecdotally, including symptoms similar to those of migraine, but it gave some insight into treatments. “Some of the CGRP inhibitors and the onabotulinum toxin seem to be some of the more effective treatments, according to our survey, so those are probably worth looking into for these patients if you can get them approved by insurance, and if you can get patients to accept the idea they might have to give themselves an injection of some sort,” said Dr. Burish.

Despite having some promise, there was variation among CGRP inhibitors. Eptinezumab, rimegepant, and atogepant were commonly reported as effective, but others, such as erenumab and galcanezumab, were less often reported. “None of them were incredibly effective. These were just the best things we have at this time,” said Dr. Burish.
 

Additional Information on a Rare, Hard-to-Treat Condition

Jason Sico, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I’m so appreciative that the team has looked at a new daily persistent headache. It’s a rare type of headache disorder. It’s also one that is notoriously difficult to treat and something that we that we really need to know more about. It is difficult to really get good, robust in-depth information on these patients, and the team did a really nice job with that,” said Dr. Sico, associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale School of Medicine and national director of the Headache Centers of Excellence Program within the Veterans Health Administration.

He noted that the researchers found that opioids were the most commonly used acute treatment. That’s not surprising, but “it would be interesting to see what was tried before someone had gotten to opioids,” he said.

The findings also gave some unexpected insight into the condition. “I really found it striking that an overwhelming majority of patients reported brain fog. Given the context that it is daily persistent headache, one could surmise that they have brain fog a lot of the time,” said Dr. Sico.
 

‘A Good Data Set’

The researchers analyzed data from 337 international patients who responded to a survey. They also randomly selected 34 patients for an interview, and 32 of those were deemed likely to have NDPH. “So we really spent some effort making sure this was a good data set,” said Dr. Burish. The participant population was 72% female, 83.7% White, and 70.7% were based in the United States, though other countries included Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. The mean age was 41.2 years. The peak ages of onset were between 11 and 40 years, though there were a few cases in the 0-5 age range and over 70. Possible triggers that occurred in the 3 months before onset included psychological stressors (34%), infection or inflammation (32%, COVID infection (5%), injury or surgery (8%), or a change in medications (4%). No clear trigger was identified by 22% of respondents.

The survey included information on associated features, and frequently reported issues included brain fog (approximate 75%), sound sensitivity (about 62%), light sensitivity (57%), nausea (39%), smell sensitivity (32%), visual disturbances (28%), vomiting (13%), and chills (9%).
 

Insights Into Treatment Efficacy

Dr. Burish showed a slide of responses to questions about acute treatments that respondents had tried at least once and viewed as ‘completely effective,’ ‘mostly effective,’ or ‘somewhat effective.’

“No medicine was completely effective, which I think a lot of people know from NDPH. It is notoriously difficult to treat. The things on the top of the list are mostly opioids. There’s one (non-opioid), the DHE (dihydroergotamine) injection. All the way on the other side, you have diphenhydramine. The NSAIDs and triptans are mostly in the middle. We did ask about some of the wearable devices, and we had extra questions about, are you using it appropriately? Those are kind of in the middle or towards the bottom [in frequency],” said Dr. Burish.

There was a similar question regarding effective preventive medications that had been tried for at least 2 months or 3 months in the cause of onabotulinum toxin or CGRP medications. “This one had a little bit more of a pattern to it: A lot of the CGRP medications are up toward the top. It’s not perfect. Erenumab and galcanezumab are closer to the bottom, but it was interesting that a lot of the CGRP medicines were toward the top. Onabotulinum toxin was also somewhat toward the top. We looked at a few different anti-inflammatories. Methylprednisolone is kind of toward the upper half at least, whereas prednisone and montelukast are at the absolute bottom. And the prednisone is a pretty good dose, 50 milligrams or higher. There are some people thinking that this is an inflammation or infectious etiology, (but) it wasn’t that all of the anti-inflammatories were necessarily toward the top of the list,” said Dr. Burish.

Dr. Burish has received funding from Lundbeck. Dr. Sico has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — A new analysis of patients with new daily persistent headache (NDPH) lends insight into the condition and provides some hints as to some of the more effective treatments, including some calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors.

“There’s just not a lot [of information] about these patients,” Mark Burish, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at UT Houston, said in an interview. He presented the results of the survey at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

There have been some retrospective analyses of patient data, but that has a lot of potential for bias. “It’s only the patients who can afford to be there, and who needed those treatments, and so we want to do more of a general survey,” said Dr. Burish.

The results weren’t particularly surprising, and tended to reaffirm what was known anecdotally, including symptoms similar to those of migraine, but it gave some insight into treatments. “Some of the CGRP inhibitors and the onabotulinum toxin seem to be some of the more effective treatments, according to our survey, so those are probably worth looking into for these patients if you can get them approved by insurance, and if you can get patients to accept the idea they might have to give themselves an injection of some sort,” said Dr. Burish.

Despite having some promise, there was variation among CGRP inhibitors. Eptinezumab, rimegepant, and atogepant were commonly reported as effective, but others, such as erenumab and galcanezumab, were less often reported. “None of them were incredibly effective. These were just the best things we have at this time,” said Dr. Burish.
 

Additional Information on a Rare, Hard-to-Treat Condition

Jason Sico, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I’m so appreciative that the team has looked at a new daily persistent headache. It’s a rare type of headache disorder. It’s also one that is notoriously difficult to treat and something that we that we really need to know more about. It is difficult to really get good, robust in-depth information on these patients, and the team did a really nice job with that,” said Dr. Sico, associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale School of Medicine and national director of the Headache Centers of Excellence Program within the Veterans Health Administration.

He noted that the researchers found that opioids were the most commonly used acute treatment. That’s not surprising, but “it would be interesting to see what was tried before someone had gotten to opioids,” he said.

The findings also gave some unexpected insight into the condition. “I really found it striking that an overwhelming majority of patients reported brain fog. Given the context that it is daily persistent headache, one could surmise that they have brain fog a lot of the time,” said Dr. Sico.
 

‘A Good Data Set’

The researchers analyzed data from 337 international patients who responded to a survey. They also randomly selected 34 patients for an interview, and 32 of those were deemed likely to have NDPH. “So we really spent some effort making sure this was a good data set,” said Dr. Burish. The participant population was 72% female, 83.7% White, and 70.7% were based in the United States, though other countries included Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. The mean age was 41.2 years. The peak ages of onset were between 11 and 40 years, though there were a few cases in the 0-5 age range and over 70. Possible triggers that occurred in the 3 months before onset included psychological stressors (34%), infection or inflammation (32%, COVID infection (5%), injury or surgery (8%), or a change in medications (4%). No clear trigger was identified by 22% of respondents.

The survey included information on associated features, and frequently reported issues included brain fog (approximate 75%), sound sensitivity (about 62%), light sensitivity (57%), nausea (39%), smell sensitivity (32%), visual disturbances (28%), vomiting (13%), and chills (9%).
 

Insights Into Treatment Efficacy

Dr. Burish showed a slide of responses to questions about acute treatments that respondents had tried at least once and viewed as ‘completely effective,’ ‘mostly effective,’ or ‘somewhat effective.’

“No medicine was completely effective, which I think a lot of people know from NDPH. It is notoriously difficult to treat. The things on the top of the list are mostly opioids. There’s one (non-opioid), the DHE (dihydroergotamine) injection. All the way on the other side, you have diphenhydramine. The NSAIDs and triptans are mostly in the middle. We did ask about some of the wearable devices, and we had extra questions about, are you using it appropriately? Those are kind of in the middle or towards the bottom [in frequency],” said Dr. Burish.

There was a similar question regarding effective preventive medications that had been tried for at least 2 months or 3 months in the cause of onabotulinum toxin or CGRP medications. “This one had a little bit more of a pattern to it: A lot of the CGRP medications are up toward the top. It’s not perfect. Erenumab and galcanezumab are closer to the bottom, but it was interesting that a lot of the CGRP medicines were toward the top. Onabotulinum toxin was also somewhat toward the top. We looked at a few different anti-inflammatories. Methylprednisolone is kind of toward the upper half at least, whereas prednisone and montelukast are at the absolute bottom. And the prednisone is a pretty good dose, 50 milligrams or higher. There are some people thinking that this is an inflammation or infectious etiology, (but) it wasn’t that all of the anti-inflammatories were necessarily toward the top of the list,” said Dr. Burish.

Dr. Burish has received funding from Lundbeck. Dr. Sico has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — A new analysis of patients with new daily persistent headache (NDPH) lends insight into the condition and provides some hints as to some of the more effective treatments, including some calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors.

“There’s just not a lot [of information] about these patients,” Mark Burish, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at UT Houston, said in an interview. He presented the results of the survey at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

There have been some retrospective analyses of patient data, but that has a lot of potential for bias. “It’s only the patients who can afford to be there, and who needed those treatments, and so we want to do more of a general survey,” said Dr. Burish.

The results weren’t particularly surprising, and tended to reaffirm what was known anecdotally, including symptoms similar to those of migraine, but it gave some insight into treatments. “Some of the CGRP inhibitors and the onabotulinum toxin seem to be some of the more effective treatments, according to our survey, so those are probably worth looking into for these patients if you can get them approved by insurance, and if you can get patients to accept the idea they might have to give themselves an injection of some sort,” said Dr. Burish.

Despite having some promise, there was variation among CGRP inhibitors. Eptinezumab, rimegepant, and atogepant were commonly reported as effective, but others, such as erenumab and galcanezumab, were less often reported. “None of them were incredibly effective. These were just the best things we have at this time,” said Dr. Burish.
 

Additional Information on a Rare, Hard-to-Treat Condition

Jason Sico, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I’m so appreciative that the team has looked at a new daily persistent headache. It’s a rare type of headache disorder. It’s also one that is notoriously difficult to treat and something that we that we really need to know more about. It is difficult to really get good, robust in-depth information on these patients, and the team did a really nice job with that,” said Dr. Sico, associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale School of Medicine and national director of the Headache Centers of Excellence Program within the Veterans Health Administration.

He noted that the researchers found that opioids were the most commonly used acute treatment. That’s not surprising, but “it would be interesting to see what was tried before someone had gotten to opioids,” he said.

The findings also gave some unexpected insight into the condition. “I really found it striking that an overwhelming majority of patients reported brain fog. Given the context that it is daily persistent headache, one could surmise that they have brain fog a lot of the time,” said Dr. Sico.
 

‘A Good Data Set’

The researchers analyzed data from 337 international patients who responded to a survey. They also randomly selected 34 patients for an interview, and 32 of those were deemed likely to have NDPH. “So we really spent some effort making sure this was a good data set,” said Dr. Burish. The participant population was 72% female, 83.7% White, and 70.7% were based in the United States, though other countries included Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. The mean age was 41.2 years. The peak ages of onset were between 11 and 40 years, though there were a few cases in the 0-5 age range and over 70. Possible triggers that occurred in the 3 months before onset included psychological stressors (34%), infection or inflammation (32%, COVID infection (5%), injury or surgery (8%), or a change in medications (4%). No clear trigger was identified by 22% of respondents.

The survey included information on associated features, and frequently reported issues included brain fog (approximate 75%), sound sensitivity (about 62%), light sensitivity (57%), nausea (39%), smell sensitivity (32%), visual disturbances (28%), vomiting (13%), and chills (9%).
 

Insights Into Treatment Efficacy

Dr. Burish showed a slide of responses to questions about acute treatments that respondents had tried at least once and viewed as ‘completely effective,’ ‘mostly effective,’ or ‘somewhat effective.’

“No medicine was completely effective, which I think a lot of people know from NDPH. It is notoriously difficult to treat. The things on the top of the list are mostly opioids. There’s one (non-opioid), the DHE (dihydroergotamine) injection. All the way on the other side, you have diphenhydramine. The NSAIDs and triptans are mostly in the middle. We did ask about some of the wearable devices, and we had extra questions about, are you using it appropriately? Those are kind of in the middle or towards the bottom [in frequency],” said Dr. Burish.

There was a similar question regarding effective preventive medications that had been tried for at least 2 months or 3 months in the cause of onabotulinum toxin or CGRP medications. “This one had a little bit more of a pattern to it: A lot of the CGRP medications are up toward the top. It’s not perfect. Erenumab and galcanezumab are closer to the bottom, but it was interesting that a lot of the CGRP medicines were toward the top. Onabotulinum toxin was also somewhat toward the top. We looked at a few different anti-inflammatories. Methylprednisolone is kind of toward the upper half at least, whereas prednisone and montelukast are at the absolute bottom. And the prednisone is a pretty good dose, 50 milligrams or higher. There are some people thinking that this is an inflammation or infectious etiology, (but) it wasn’t that all of the anti-inflammatories were necessarily toward the top of the list,” said Dr. Burish.

Dr. Burish has received funding from Lundbeck. Dr. Sico has no relevant financial disclosures.

Editor’s note: This is Dr. Eastern’s last “Managing Your Practice” column for Dermatology News. After his first column was published in 1986, Dr. Eastern continued writing his column monthly until the mid-1990s, resuming in 2005. In total, he has written over 300 columns on topics relevant to medical practice, ranging from hiring employees, selling and merging practices, complying with OSHA, and avoiding embezzlement, to electronic health records, burnout, medical assistants, negative online reviews, artificial intelligence in the office, and more. In the future, he will continue to provide commentary on practice issues with an occasional guest editorial.

Medicare reimbursement cuts, increasing overhead and staff salaries, and inflation have made running a profitable private practice increasingly challenging, particularly for rural and smaller offices. Medical credit cards are an increasingly popular choice to fill this gap.

Unlike a conventional credit card, a medical credit card is used only to pay for medical services.

Credit_cards_web.jpg

Traditionally, these cards were used to help cover procedures insurance didn’t cover — such as cosmetic procedures — but over the years, they have been expanded to cover other healthcare charges, mostly for patients who are paying out of pocket due to inadequate insurance or other reasons.

Advantages for physicians include immediate payment from the credit card company and reduced billing and collection costs. Patients are also less likely to delay or defer treatment if they can charge the payment and pay it back in installments.

The first step in offering medical credit cards is signing up with one or more third-party card companies. CareCredit is the most common provider in the medical credit card market. Other vendors include Wells Fargo, AccessOne, Alphaeon Credit, and iCare Financial. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.) A member of your staff signs patients up, and the credit card company checks their credit. If approved, the card company pays you your fee and assumes responsibility for collecting from the patient.

The interest charge on medical credit cards is often deferred for a period of time, typically between 6 and 24 months. If patients pay off the debt within this time, they can avoid paying interest. But, like other credit cards, if they make late payments or have an unpaid balance once the promotional period ends, they may end up with interest and fees totaling 25%-30% or more. It is important to make it very clear to your patients that payments are interest-free only if they are all made on time and within the promotional period.

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

According to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards or loans were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to complete payment during the promotional period paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period.

Despite the growing popularity of medical credit cards among physicians, it is worth noting that some consumer groups view them as predatory financial products, marketed toward people in tough financial situations. A coalition of 60 health advocacy groups has urged the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards. So there is that much more reason to choose candidates for medical credit cards carefully, and to make them fully aware of what obligations they are assuming.

Patients who do not think they can pay off the balance within the interest-free time frame should probably be advised to pursue an alternative payment method, such as using a conventional credit card, taking out a personal or home-equity loan, or borrowing from a retirement savings account. Some physicians are willing to negotiate a reduced fee for patients who agree to pay cash at the time of service.

Those who do choose to apply for a medical credit card should be informed of their options, which can vary considerably depending on the product and the third-party vendor. Some medical credit products can be used only for elective procedures, but some can be used more broadly for various medical expenses. Check to make sure that each patient’s financing option can be used for his or her desired medical service.

[embed:render:related:node:269301]

Some payment products can only be used at specific practices or groups, while others can be used at a variety of medical offices and hospitals. If a patient arrives with a medical credit card already in hand, confirm that it is one that your office accepts.

Interest rates generally vary with each card and vendor. Make patients aware of when interest rates start accruing and if the plan offers a fixed or variable APR, or if it charges compounding interest. Confirm if there is a deferred interest option, and if so, for how long.

Different medical credit products also have varying fees and payment schedules. See that each patient reads the terms of the agreement to understand when interest may start to accrue or change, as well as when certain fees may apply. Understanding when the payments are due will help them avoid additional fees, including late fees. Some medical payment plans may also have administrative or processing fees. If so, patients should be made aware of them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, New Jersey. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Editor’s note: This is Dr. Eastern’s last “Managing Your Practice” column for Dermatology News. After his first column was published in 1986, Dr. Eastern continued writing his column monthly until the mid-1990s, resuming in 2005. In total, he has written over 300 columns on topics relevant to medical practice, ranging from hiring employees, selling and merging practices, complying with OSHA, and avoiding embezzlement, to electronic health records, burnout, medical assistants, negative online reviews, artificial intelligence in the office, and more. In the future, he will continue to provide commentary on practice issues with an occasional guest editorial.

Medicare reimbursement cuts, increasing overhead and staff salaries, and inflation have made running a profitable private practice increasingly challenging, particularly for rural and smaller offices. Medical credit cards are an increasingly popular choice to fill this gap.

Unlike a conventional credit card, a medical credit card is used only to pay for medical services.

Credit_cards_web.jpg

Traditionally, these cards were used to help cover procedures insurance didn’t cover — such as cosmetic procedures — but over the years, they have been expanded to cover other healthcare charges, mostly for patients who are paying out of pocket due to inadequate insurance or other reasons.

Advantages for physicians include immediate payment from the credit card company and reduced billing and collection costs. Patients are also less likely to delay or defer treatment if they can charge the payment and pay it back in installments.

The first step in offering medical credit cards is signing up with one or more third-party card companies. CareCredit is the most common provider in the medical credit card market. Other vendors include Wells Fargo, AccessOne, Alphaeon Credit, and iCare Financial. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.) A member of your staff signs patients up, and the credit card company checks their credit. If approved, the card company pays you your fee and assumes responsibility for collecting from the patient.

The interest charge on medical credit cards is often deferred for a period of time, typically between 6 and 24 months. If patients pay off the debt within this time, they can avoid paying interest. But, like other credit cards, if they make late payments or have an unpaid balance once the promotional period ends, they may end up with interest and fees totaling 25%-30% or more. It is important to make it very clear to your patients that payments are interest-free only if they are all made on time and within the promotional period.

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

According to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards or loans were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to complete payment during the promotional period paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period.

Despite the growing popularity of medical credit cards among physicians, it is worth noting that some consumer groups view them as predatory financial products, marketed toward people in tough financial situations. A coalition of 60 health advocacy groups has urged the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards. So there is that much more reason to choose candidates for medical credit cards carefully, and to make them fully aware of what obligations they are assuming.

Patients who do not think they can pay off the balance within the interest-free time frame should probably be advised to pursue an alternative payment method, such as using a conventional credit card, taking out a personal or home-equity loan, or borrowing from a retirement savings account. Some physicians are willing to negotiate a reduced fee for patients who agree to pay cash at the time of service.

Those who do choose to apply for a medical credit card should be informed of their options, which can vary considerably depending on the product and the third-party vendor. Some medical credit products can be used only for elective procedures, but some can be used more broadly for various medical expenses. Check to make sure that each patient’s financing option can be used for his or her desired medical service.

[embed:render:related:node:269301]

Some payment products can only be used at specific practices or groups, while others can be used at a variety of medical offices and hospitals. If a patient arrives with a medical credit card already in hand, confirm that it is one that your office accepts.

Interest rates generally vary with each card and vendor. Make patients aware of when interest rates start accruing and if the plan offers a fixed or variable APR, or if it charges compounding interest. Confirm if there is a deferred interest option, and if so, for how long.

Different medical credit products also have varying fees and payment schedules. See that each patient reads the terms of the agreement to understand when interest may start to accrue or change, as well as when certain fees may apply. Understanding when the payments are due will help them avoid additional fees, including late fees. Some medical payment plans may also have administrative or processing fees. If so, patients should be made aware of them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, New Jersey. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Editor’s note: This is Dr. Eastern’s last “Managing Your Practice” column for Dermatology News. After his first column was published in 1986, Dr. Eastern continued writing his column monthly until the mid-1990s, resuming in 2005. In total, he has written over 300 columns on topics relevant to medical practice, ranging from hiring employees, selling and merging practices, complying with OSHA, and avoiding embezzlement, to electronic health records, burnout, medical assistants, negative online reviews, artificial intelligence in the office, and more. In the future, he will continue to provide commentary on practice issues with an occasional guest editorial.

Medicare reimbursement cuts, increasing overhead and staff salaries, and inflation have made running a profitable private practice increasingly challenging, particularly for rural and smaller offices. Medical credit cards are an increasingly popular choice to fill this gap.

Unlike a conventional credit card, a medical credit card is used only to pay for medical services.

Credit_cards_web.jpg

Traditionally, these cards were used to help cover procedures insurance didn’t cover — such as cosmetic procedures — but over the years, they have been expanded to cover other healthcare charges, mostly for patients who are paying out of pocket due to inadequate insurance or other reasons.

Advantages for physicians include immediate payment from the credit card company and reduced billing and collection costs. Patients are also less likely to delay or defer treatment if they can charge the payment and pay it back in installments.

The first step in offering medical credit cards is signing up with one or more third-party card companies. CareCredit is the most common provider in the medical credit card market. Other vendors include Wells Fargo, AccessOne, Alphaeon Credit, and iCare Financial. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.) A member of your staff signs patients up, and the credit card company checks their credit. If approved, the card company pays you your fee and assumes responsibility for collecting from the patient.

The interest charge on medical credit cards is often deferred for a period of time, typically between 6 and 24 months. If patients pay off the debt within this time, they can avoid paying interest. But, like other credit cards, if they make late payments or have an unpaid balance once the promotional period ends, they may end up with interest and fees totaling 25%-30% or more. It is important to make it very clear to your patients that payments are interest-free only if they are all made on time and within the promotional period.

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

According to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards or loans were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to complete payment during the promotional period paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period.

Despite the growing popularity of medical credit cards among physicians, it is worth noting that some consumer groups view them as predatory financial products, marketed toward people in tough financial situations. A coalition of 60 health advocacy groups has urged the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards. So there is that much more reason to choose candidates for medical credit cards carefully, and to make them fully aware of what obligations they are assuming.

Patients who do not think they can pay off the balance within the interest-free time frame should probably be advised to pursue an alternative payment method, such as using a conventional credit card, taking out a personal or home-equity loan, or borrowing from a retirement savings account. Some physicians are willing to negotiate a reduced fee for patients who agree to pay cash at the time of service.

Those who do choose to apply for a medical credit card should be informed of their options, which can vary considerably depending on the product and the third-party vendor. Some medical credit products can be used only for elective procedures, but some can be used more broadly for various medical expenses. Check to make sure that each patient’s financing option can be used for his or her desired medical service.

[embed:render:related:node:269301]

Some payment products can only be used at specific practices or groups, while others can be used at a variety of medical offices and hospitals. If a patient arrives with a medical credit card already in hand, confirm that it is one that your office accepts.

Interest rates generally vary with each card and vendor. Make patients aware of when interest rates start accruing and if the plan offers a fixed or variable APR, or if it charges compounding interest. Confirm if there is a deferred interest option, and if so, for how long.

Different medical credit products also have varying fees and payment schedules. See that each patient reads the terms of the agreement to understand when interest may start to accrue or change, as well as when certain fees may apply. Understanding when the payments are due will help them avoid additional fees, including late fees. Some medical payment plans may also have administrative or processing fees. If so, patients should be made aware of them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, New Jersey. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — For the first time, the majority of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in the United States are, or soon will be, over age 55, a phenomenon that’s driving a shift in priorities including the creation of MS aging centers and a push for more clinical trials aimed at this growing patient population.

Given typical patterns of MS onset and its rate of progression, disease duration has long been thought to be the key variable driving disability, but Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, director of the neuroimmunology research program at the University of California, San Diego, said she now believes that “patient age is actually more important.”

Graves_Jennifer_Calif_web.jpg

Speaking at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC), Dr. Graves noted that it is well known that key MS symptoms increase over time, particularly during the transition from a relapsing to a progressive phenotype.

However, she maintains that, independent of disease progression, the impact of aging on MS has been underappreciated. She cited research showing that, relative to chronological age, biologic age is more robustly correlated with MS outcomes.

In studies evaluating variables such as telomere length, various markers of senescence, and DNA methylation patterns, Dr. Graves and others have shown that biologic versus chronological aging is more rapid in patients with MS than those without the disease. In addition, within the population with MS, there are also data supporting the premise that disease progression is slower in those with a younger versus older biologic age.

“This raises the question of whether biologic age is a driver of MS and whether we can slow the disease trajectory if we slow [biologic] aging,” Dr. Graves said. While she acknowledged that genetics play an important role in the aging process, she pointed to evidence showing exposure to toxins and other biological stressors, as well as poor lifestyle choices, such as lack of exercise and smoking, are modifiable aging variables.

There are already many avenues of research regarding aging processes and their interaction with MS. Dr. Graves spoke briefly about current research into the relationship between declining ovarian function, declining telomere length, and how this might relate to the transition to progressive MS and advancing disability. To date, her research has revealed a correlation between declining ovarian function and increasing MS disability.
 

Shifting Priorities

The rapid aging of the population with MS in the United States makes research into slowing biologic aging a priority, said Robert Motl, PhD, professor in the department of physical therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham Multiple Sclerosis Center. He reported he was able to secure funding from the National MS Society for the Healthy Aging through LifesTyle MS Research Center 10 years ago.

“We are the first and, so far, the only research center devoted to the study of aging in MS,” said Dr. Motl, another participant in the CMSC aging symposium. Dr. Motl said he and a colleague have been evaluating specific strategies to meet the varied needs of aging patients with MS with a key focus on physical therapy and preserving function.

Yinan Zhang, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, recently started a multidisciplinary clinic for the management of older patients with MS and said he hopes these types of clinics will help shed light on the unmet needs of older adults with MS — particularly the need for better therapies to address common types of neurodegeneration in this population.

“We need to move away from immunomodulatory agents [in older patients],” Dr. Zhang said. Older patients are typically excluded from therapeutic MS trials for a number of reasons, not least because trials have been traditionally targeted at relapsing disease, which is less common in older patients with MS. He believes older patients are particularly appropriate candidates for MS therapy trials aimed at progressive neurodegeneration, which is characteristic of late-stage disease. Therapies with the potential to slow, or even reverse, demyelination are among the novel strategies being pursued in progressive MS.
 

Multidisciplinary Approach

Dr. Zhang acknowledged that his recently established MS clinic is still in the early phases and is largely focused on comprehensive care designed to meet the diverse needs of older individuals who often have advanced disabilities and comorbidities.

Currently, each patient that attends the clinic consults with six different types of providers, including a psychologist, a pharmacist, and a physical therapist — all in a single appointment.

Dr. Zhang said his decision to open a clinic was motivated by the increased volume of older patients with MS and was inspired by similar clinics for other disease states in older individuals.

“The need is already strong and growing,” said Dr. Zhang, who speculated that these types of clinics will become widespread as the need for this care is more broadly recognized and accepted.

As the clinic evolves and matures, Dr. Zhang anticipates there will be a research component to better characterize cell senescence and aging processes that might eventually be modifiable or even reversible. He also speculated that aging in MS might eventually become a subspecialty.

Dr. Graves reported financial relationships with Horizon Therapeutics. Dr. Zhang reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Motl reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — For the first time, the majority of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in the United States are, or soon will be, over age 55, a phenomenon that’s driving a shift in priorities including the creation of MS aging centers and a push for more clinical trials aimed at this growing patient population.

Given typical patterns of MS onset and its rate of progression, disease duration has long been thought to be the key variable driving disability, but Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, director of the neuroimmunology research program at the University of California, San Diego, said she now believes that “patient age is actually more important.”

Graves_Jennifer_Calif_web.jpg

Speaking at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC), Dr. Graves noted that it is well known that key MS symptoms increase over time, particularly during the transition from a relapsing to a progressive phenotype.

However, she maintains that, independent of disease progression, the impact of aging on MS has been underappreciated. She cited research showing that, relative to chronological age, biologic age is more robustly correlated with MS outcomes.

In studies evaluating variables such as telomere length, various markers of senescence, and DNA methylation patterns, Dr. Graves and others have shown that biologic versus chronological aging is more rapid in patients with MS than those without the disease. In addition, within the population with MS, there are also data supporting the premise that disease progression is slower in those with a younger versus older biologic age.

“This raises the question of whether biologic age is a driver of MS and whether we can slow the disease trajectory if we slow [biologic] aging,” Dr. Graves said. While she acknowledged that genetics play an important role in the aging process, she pointed to evidence showing exposure to toxins and other biological stressors, as well as poor lifestyle choices, such as lack of exercise and smoking, are modifiable aging variables.

There are already many avenues of research regarding aging processes and their interaction with MS. Dr. Graves spoke briefly about current research into the relationship between declining ovarian function, declining telomere length, and how this might relate to the transition to progressive MS and advancing disability. To date, her research has revealed a correlation between declining ovarian function and increasing MS disability.
 

Shifting Priorities

The rapid aging of the population with MS in the United States makes research into slowing biologic aging a priority, said Robert Motl, PhD, professor in the department of physical therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham Multiple Sclerosis Center. He reported he was able to secure funding from the National MS Society for the Healthy Aging through LifesTyle MS Research Center 10 years ago.

“We are the first and, so far, the only research center devoted to the study of aging in MS,” said Dr. Motl, another participant in the CMSC aging symposium. Dr. Motl said he and a colleague have been evaluating specific strategies to meet the varied needs of aging patients with MS with a key focus on physical therapy and preserving function.

Yinan Zhang, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, recently started a multidisciplinary clinic for the management of older patients with MS and said he hopes these types of clinics will help shed light on the unmet needs of older adults with MS — particularly the need for better therapies to address common types of neurodegeneration in this population.

“We need to move away from immunomodulatory agents [in older patients],” Dr. Zhang said. Older patients are typically excluded from therapeutic MS trials for a number of reasons, not least because trials have been traditionally targeted at relapsing disease, which is less common in older patients with MS. He believes older patients are particularly appropriate candidates for MS therapy trials aimed at progressive neurodegeneration, which is characteristic of late-stage disease. Therapies with the potential to slow, or even reverse, demyelination are among the novel strategies being pursued in progressive MS.
 

Multidisciplinary Approach

Dr. Zhang acknowledged that his recently established MS clinic is still in the early phases and is largely focused on comprehensive care designed to meet the diverse needs of older individuals who often have advanced disabilities and comorbidities.

Currently, each patient that attends the clinic consults with six different types of providers, including a psychologist, a pharmacist, and a physical therapist — all in a single appointment.

Dr. Zhang said his decision to open a clinic was motivated by the increased volume of older patients with MS and was inspired by similar clinics for other disease states in older individuals.

“The need is already strong and growing,” said Dr. Zhang, who speculated that these types of clinics will become widespread as the need for this care is more broadly recognized and accepted.

As the clinic evolves and matures, Dr. Zhang anticipates there will be a research component to better characterize cell senescence and aging processes that might eventually be modifiable or even reversible. He also speculated that aging in MS might eventually become a subspecialty.

Dr. Graves reported financial relationships with Horizon Therapeutics. Dr. Zhang reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Motl reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — For the first time, the majority of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in the United States are, or soon will be, over age 55, a phenomenon that’s driving a shift in priorities including the creation of MS aging centers and a push for more clinical trials aimed at this growing patient population.

Given typical patterns of MS onset and its rate of progression, disease duration has long been thought to be the key variable driving disability, but Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, director of the neuroimmunology research program at the University of California, San Diego, said she now believes that “patient age is actually more important.”

Graves_Jennifer_Calif_web.jpg

Speaking at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC), Dr. Graves noted that it is well known that key MS symptoms increase over time, particularly during the transition from a relapsing to a progressive phenotype.

However, she maintains that, independent of disease progression, the impact of aging on MS has been underappreciated. She cited research showing that, relative to chronological age, biologic age is more robustly correlated with MS outcomes.

In studies evaluating variables such as telomere length, various markers of senescence, and DNA methylation patterns, Dr. Graves and others have shown that biologic versus chronological aging is more rapid in patients with MS than those without the disease. In addition, within the population with MS, there are also data supporting the premise that disease progression is slower in those with a younger versus older biologic age.

“This raises the question of whether biologic age is a driver of MS and whether we can slow the disease trajectory if we slow [biologic] aging,” Dr. Graves said. While she acknowledged that genetics play an important role in the aging process, she pointed to evidence showing exposure to toxins and other biological stressors, as well as poor lifestyle choices, such as lack of exercise and smoking, are modifiable aging variables.

There are already many avenues of research regarding aging processes and their interaction with MS. Dr. Graves spoke briefly about current research into the relationship between declining ovarian function, declining telomere length, and how this might relate to the transition to progressive MS and advancing disability. To date, her research has revealed a correlation between declining ovarian function and increasing MS disability.
 

Shifting Priorities

The rapid aging of the population with MS in the United States makes research into slowing biologic aging a priority, said Robert Motl, PhD, professor in the department of physical therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham Multiple Sclerosis Center. He reported he was able to secure funding from the National MS Society for the Healthy Aging through LifesTyle MS Research Center 10 years ago.

“We are the first and, so far, the only research center devoted to the study of aging in MS,” said Dr. Motl, another participant in the CMSC aging symposium. Dr. Motl said he and a colleague have been evaluating specific strategies to meet the varied needs of aging patients with MS with a key focus on physical therapy and preserving function.

Yinan Zhang, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, recently started a multidisciplinary clinic for the management of older patients with MS and said he hopes these types of clinics will help shed light on the unmet needs of older adults with MS — particularly the need for better therapies to address common types of neurodegeneration in this population.

“We need to move away from immunomodulatory agents [in older patients],” Dr. Zhang said. Older patients are typically excluded from therapeutic MS trials for a number of reasons, not least because trials have been traditionally targeted at relapsing disease, which is less common in older patients with MS. He believes older patients are particularly appropriate candidates for MS therapy trials aimed at progressive neurodegeneration, which is characteristic of late-stage disease. Therapies with the potential to slow, or even reverse, demyelination are among the novel strategies being pursued in progressive MS.
 

Multidisciplinary Approach

Dr. Zhang acknowledged that his recently established MS clinic is still in the early phases and is largely focused on comprehensive care designed to meet the diverse needs of older individuals who often have advanced disabilities and comorbidities.

Currently, each patient that attends the clinic consults with six different types of providers, including a psychologist, a pharmacist, and a physical therapist — all in a single appointment.

Dr. Zhang said his decision to open a clinic was motivated by the increased volume of older patients with MS and was inspired by similar clinics for other disease states in older individuals.

“The need is already strong and growing,” said Dr. Zhang, who speculated that these types of clinics will become widespread as the need for this care is more broadly recognized and accepted.

As the clinic evolves and matures, Dr. Zhang anticipates there will be a research component to better characterize cell senescence and aging processes that might eventually be modifiable or even reversible. He also speculated that aging in MS might eventually become a subspecialty.

Dr. Graves reported financial relationships with Horizon Therapeutics. Dr. Zhang reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Motl reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A single course of treatment with emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET) was associated with a significantly greater reduction in chronic pain severity than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the current psychotherapeutic gold standard, a new study suggested.

Two thirds of the patients who received EAET reported at least a 30% reduction in pain compared with 17% of those who received CBT. The randomized clinical trial also showed that individuals with depression and anxiety responded more favorably to EAET, a novel finding.

The study is one of only a few to directly compare EAET with CBT.

“Most people with chronic pain don’t consider psychotherapy at all,” said study investigator Brandon C. Yarns, MD, a staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and clinical professor of health sciences at the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Health.

Although patients were allowed to continue medication for pain and other comorbidities during the study, those who received EAET “had larger improvements in pain, depression, and anxiety,” Dr. Yarns said. “That suggests that the effect was due to the EAET.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Gold Standard’

EAET was first used in the early 2010s. In the therapy, patients are asked to recall a difficult or traumatic memory, engage in experiencing how the related emotions feel in the body, express those feelings in words, and release or let them go. They are taught that the brain’s perception of pain is strongly influenced by the evasion of grief, fear, rage, or guilt, Dr. Yarns said.

This contrasts with CBT — considered the current gold standard for chronic pain — which teaches patients to improve the ability to tolerate pain though guided imagery, muscle relaxation, and other exercises and to adapt their thinking to change how they think about pain.

Although prior studies suggested EAET is effective in reducing pain in fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal, pelvic, and head pain, most included primarily younger, female patients.

The research is the “first full-scale evaluation of EAET, to our knowledge, in a medically or psychiatrically complex, racially and ethnically diverse, older sample comprising predominantly men,” investigators wrote.

The trial enrolled 126 veterans (92% men; 55% Black or African American) aged 60-95 years with at least 3 months of musculoskeletal pain. More than two thirds of patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, with about one third having posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Almost all had back pain, and many had pain in multiple locations.

All services were delivered in-person at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles. Half underwent CBT, while the other half received EAET.

Each patient had one 90-minute individual session and eight additional 90-minute group sessions.

Patients were asked to rate their pain using a 0-10 scale in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) before starting treatment, at the end of the nine sessions (at week 10), and 6 months after the sessions ended. Baseline BPI score for both groups was a mean of around 6.

Post treatment, people in the EAET versus CBT group had a mean two-point reduction versus 0.60 reduction, respectively, on the BPI scale. A clinically significant reduction in pain — defined as ≥ 30% decrease — was reported in 63% of EAET patients versus 17% of CBT patients (odds ratio [OR], 21.54; P < .001).

At 6 months, the mean reduction was 1.2 for the EAET group compared with 0.25 for the CBT group, and 40% of the EAET group reported a clinically significant reduction in pain.

A little more than a third (35%) of veterans receiving EAET reported at least a 50% reduction in pain at 10 weeks compared with 7% of those receiving CBT. At 6 months, 16% of the EAET arm reported a halving of their pain.

EAET was also superior to CBT in reducing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms at the 10-week mark.
 

More Work Needed

In an accompanying editorial, Matthias Karst, MD, PhD, a clinician with the Pain Clinic, Hannover Medical School, in Hannover, Germany, noted that EAET’s effects “are significantly superior to those of CBT in almost all dimensions, even after 6 months.”

EAET “assigns a special place to the integration of the body into the emotional experience,” he wrote.

The study demonstrated that “the evocation and expression of emotions is superior to the mere cognitive discussion of these emotions in therapy of patients with chronic pain.”

Commenting on the findings, Traci J. Speed, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and an attending psychiatrist of the Johns Hopkins Pain Treatment Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the study “ground-breaking” because it showed effectiveness in people with high rates of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

“It is a little bit surprising how impressive the study outcomes are in terms of maintaining the effects at the end of the treatment and sustaining some of the effects on pain sensitivity even at the 6-month follow-up,” said Dr. Speed, who was not part of the study.

However, she continued, “I don’t think it changes the current standard of practice yet. CBT has decades of research and evidence that it is effective for chronic pain and that will I think continue to be the standard of care.”

Although EAET is in its infancy, chronic pain experts are interested in learning more about the therapy, Dr. Speed added.

“It blends well with the current techniques and extends the current gold standard treatment approaches,” she said. “We are starting to really appreciate the role that emotions play in pain sensitivity.”

Both Dr. Karst and Dr. Speed noted that more study is needed to determine the sustainability of treatment effects.

Dr. Yarns agreed. “We need more research on what the appropriate dose is and perhaps how one might go about personalizing that for the patient,” he said.

The study was funded by a career development award to Dr. Yarns from the VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service. Dr. Yarns reported receiving grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs during the study. Other authors’ disclosures are in the original article. Dr. Speed reported no conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A single course of treatment with emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET) was associated with a significantly greater reduction in chronic pain severity than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the current psychotherapeutic gold standard, a new study suggested.

Two thirds of the patients who received EAET reported at least a 30% reduction in pain compared with 17% of those who received CBT. The randomized clinical trial also showed that individuals with depression and anxiety responded more favorably to EAET, a novel finding.

The study is one of only a few to directly compare EAET with CBT.

“Most people with chronic pain don’t consider psychotherapy at all,” said study investigator Brandon C. Yarns, MD, a staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and clinical professor of health sciences at the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Health.

Although patients were allowed to continue medication for pain and other comorbidities during the study, those who received EAET “had larger improvements in pain, depression, and anxiety,” Dr. Yarns said. “That suggests that the effect was due to the EAET.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Gold Standard’

EAET was first used in the early 2010s. In the therapy, patients are asked to recall a difficult or traumatic memory, engage in experiencing how the related emotions feel in the body, express those feelings in words, and release or let them go. They are taught that the brain’s perception of pain is strongly influenced by the evasion of grief, fear, rage, or guilt, Dr. Yarns said.

This contrasts with CBT — considered the current gold standard for chronic pain — which teaches patients to improve the ability to tolerate pain though guided imagery, muscle relaxation, and other exercises and to adapt their thinking to change how they think about pain.

Although prior studies suggested EAET is effective in reducing pain in fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal, pelvic, and head pain, most included primarily younger, female patients.

The research is the “first full-scale evaluation of EAET, to our knowledge, in a medically or psychiatrically complex, racially and ethnically diverse, older sample comprising predominantly men,” investigators wrote.

The trial enrolled 126 veterans (92% men; 55% Black or African American) aged 60-95 years with at least 3 months of musculoskeletal pain. More than two thirds of patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, with about one third having posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Almost all had back pain, and many had pain in multiple locations.

All services were delivered in-person at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles. Half underwent CBT, while the other half received EAET.

Each patient had one 90-minute individual session and eight additional 90-minute group sessions.

Patients were asked to rate their pain using a 0-10 scale in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) before starting treatment, at the end of the nine sessions (at week 10), and 6 months after the sessions ended. Baseline BPI score for both groups was a mean of around 6.

Post treatment, people in the EAET versus CBT group had a mean two-point reduction versus 0.60 reduction, respectively, on the BPI scale. A clinically significant reduction in pain — defined as ≥ 30% decrease — was reported in 63% of EAET patients versus 17% of CBT patients (odds ratio [OR], 21.54; P < .001).

At 6 months, the mean reduction was 1.2 for the EAET group compared with 0.25 for the CBT group, and 40% of the EAET group reported a clinically significant reduction in pain.

A little more than a third (35%) of veterans receiving EAET reported at least a 50% reduction in pain at 10 weeks compared with 7% of those receiving CBT. At 6 months, 16% of the EAET arm reported a halving of their pain.

EAET was also superior to CBT in reducing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms at the 10-week mark.
 

More Work Needed

In an accompanying editorial, Matthias Karst, MD, PhD, a clinician with the Pain Clinic, Hannover Medical School, in Hannover, Germany, noted that EAET’s effects “are significantly superior to those of CBT in almost all dimensions, even after 6 months.”

EAET “assigns a special place to the integration of the body into the emotional experience,” he wrote.

The study demonstrated that “the evocation and expression of emotions is superior to the mere cognitive discussion of these emotions in therapy of patients with chronic pain.”

Commenting on the findings, Traci J. Speed, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and an attending psychiatrist of the Johns Hopkins Pain Treatment Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the study “ground-breaking” because it showed effectiveness in people with high rates of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

“It is a little bit surprising how impressive the study outcomes are in terms of maintaining the effects at the end of the treatment and sustaining some of the effects on pain sensitivity even at the 6-month follow-up,” said Dr. Speed, who was not part of the study.

However, she continued, “I don’t think it changes the current standard of practice yet. CBT has decades of research and evidence that it is effective for chronic pain and that will I think continue to be the standard of care.”

Although EAET is in its infancy, chronic pain experts are interested in learning more about the therapy, Dr. Speed added.

“It blends well with the current techniques and extends the current gold standard treatment approaches,” she said. “We are starting to really appreciate the role that emotions play in pain sensitivity.”

Both Dr. Karst and Dr. Speed noted that more study is needed to determine the sustainability of treatment effects.

Dr. Yarns agreed. “We need more research on what the appropriate dose is and perhaps how one might go about personalizing that for the patient,” he said.

The study was funded by a career development award to Dr. Yarns from the VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service. Dr. Yarns reported receiving grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs during the study. Other authors’ disclosures are in the original article. Dr. Speed reported no conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A single course of treatment with emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET) was associated with a significantly greater reduction in chronic pain severity than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the current psychotherapeutic gold standard, a new study suggested.

Two thirds of the patients who received EAET reported at least a 30% reduction in pain compared with 17% of those who received CBT. The randomized clinical trial also showed that individuals with depression and anxiety responded more favorably to EAET, a novel finding.

The study is one of only a few to directly compare EAET with CBT.

“Most people with chronic pain don’t consider psychotherapy at all,” said study investigator Brandon C. Yarns, MD, a staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and clinical professor of health sciences at the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Health.

Although patients were allowed to continue medication for pain and other comorbidities during the study, those who received EAET “had larger improvements in pain, depression, and anxiety,” Dr. Yarns said. “That suggests that the effect was due to the EAET.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Gold Standard’

EAET was first used in the early 2010s. In the therapy, patients are asked to recall a difficult or traumatic memory, engage in experiencing how the related emotions feel in the body, express those feelings in words, and release or let them go. They are taught that the brain’s perception of pain is strongly influenced by the evasion of grief, fear, rage, or guilt, Dr. Yarns said.

This contrasts with CBT — considered the current gold standard for chronic pain — which teaches patients to improve the ability to tolerate pain though guided imagery, muscle relaxation, and other exercises and to adapt their thinking to change how they think about pain.

Although prior studies suggested EAET is effective in reducing pain in fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal, pelvic, and head pain, most included primarily younger, female patients.

The research is the “first full-scale evaluation of EAET, to our knowledge, in a medically or psychiatrically complex, racially and ethnically diverse, older sample comprising predominantly men,” investigators wrote.

The trial enrolled 126 veterans (92% men; 55% Black or African American) aged 60-95 years with at least 3 months of musculoskeletal pain. More than two thirds of patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, with about one third having posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Almost all had back pain, and many had pain in multiple locations.

All services were delivered in-person at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles. Half underwent CBT, while the other half received EAET.

Each patient had one 90-minute individual session and eight additional 90-minute group sessions.

Patients were asked to rate their pain using a 0-10 scale in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) before starting treatment, at the end of the nine sessions (at week 10), and 6 months after the sessions ended. Baseline BPI score for both groups was a mean of around 6.

Post treatment, people in the EAET versus CBT group had a mean two-point reduction versus 0.60 reduction, respectively, on the BPI scale. A clinically significant reduction in pain — defined as ≥ 30% decrease — was reported in 63% of EAET patients versus 17% of CBT patients (odds ratio [OR], 21.54; P < .001).

At 6 months, the mean reduction was 1.2 for the EAET group compared with 0.25 for the CBT group, and 40% of the EAET group reported a clinically significant reduction in pain.

A little more than a third (35%) of veterans receiving EAET reported at least a 50% reduction in pain at 10 weeks compared with 7% of those receiving CBT. At 6 months, 16% of the EAET arm reported a halving of their pain.

EAET was also superior to CBT in reducing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms at the 10-week mark.
 

More Work Needed

In an accompanying editorial, Matthias Karst, MD, PhD, a clinician with the Pain Clinic, Hannover Medical School, in Hannover, Germany, noted that EAET’s effects “are significantly superior to those of CBT in almost all dimensions, even after 6 months.”

EAET “assigns a special place to the integration of the body into the emotional experience,” he wrote.

The study demonstrated that “the evocation and expression of emotions is superior to the mere cognitive discussion of these emotions in therapy of patients with chronic pain.”

Commenting on the findings, Traci J. Speed, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and an attending psychiatrist of the Johns Hopkins Pain Treatment Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the study “ground-breaking” because it showed effectiveness in people with high rates of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

“It is a little bit surprising how impressive the study outcomes are in terms of maintaining the effects at the end of the treatment and sustaining some of the effects on pain sensitivity even at the 6-month follow-up,” said Dr. Speed, who was not part of the study.

However, she continued, “I don’t think it changes the current standard of practice yet. CBT has decades of research and evidence that it is effective for chronic pain and that will I think continue to be the standard of care.”

Although EAET is in its infancy, chronic pain experts are interested in learning more about the therapy, Dr. Speed added.

“It blends well with the current techniques and extends the current gold standard treatment approaches,” she said. “We are starting to really appreciate the role that emotions play in pain sensitivity.”

Both Dr. Karst and Dr. Speed noted that more study is needed to determine the sustainability of treatment effects.

Dr. Yarns agreed. “We need more research on what the appropriate dose is and perhaps how one might go about personalizing that for the patient,” he said.

The study was funded by a career development award to Dr. Yarns from the VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service. Dr. Yarns reported receiving grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs during the study. Other authors’ disclosures are in the original article. Dr. Speed reported no conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Nearly one in three patients with migraine are reluctant to seek medical help and many blame healthcare providers, results of a recent survey showed.

Participants cited concerns that their complaints would be dismissed, a belief that healthcare providers could offer no additional help, and a prior unsuccessful clinician visit as reasons for not seeking care. Survey respondents saw an average of four clinicians before finally receiving a diagnosis.

“I was shocked that a third of patients were reluctant to seek care,” said study investigator Elizabeth K. Seng, PhD, associate professor, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, and research associate professor, department of neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. “That just shows a much higher level of medical distress than I expected from this community of people who are obviously suffering from this significant neurologic disease.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

‘Significant Disease’

The study included 500 adults with migraine (mean age, 40 years) who signed up for a patient support group sponsored by Eli Lilly and completed a comprehensive survey. Respondents were mostly female, White, non-Hispanic, and well-educated individuals.

Half of participants had episodic migraines, and half had chronic migraines; 46% reported experiencing anxiety and 33% reported depression.

Almost all respondents had initiated treatment with a first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody.

“These are people who have significant enough disease that eventually they needed our top-tier preventive medication,” Dr. Seng said.

Participants answered a variety of questions pertaining to disease factors and treatment seeking. Just over 70% said they suspected they had migraine prior to diagnosis, “which means for almost 30%, it was a surprise when they received the diagnosis,” said Dr. Seng. 

Nearly 40% reported that a relative first suggested they may have migraine, and 33% suspected it themselves. Only 17.4% said a healthcare provider suggested they may have the condition.

Almost a third of respondents (30.5%) reported they were reluctant to seek medical help.

“Some said they didn’t think their physician could do anything more than they were already doing for themselves, or that they’d be taken seriously, or they had had talked to doctors before and this wasn’t helpful,” said Dr. Seng. 

These responses speak to the need for better public health messaging, she said. “People have this idea that migraine attacks aren’t a big deal when, in fact, these attacks area big deal and certainly deserve treatment.” 

Family and friends were participants’ most common source of information on migraine, followed by the Internet. “This highlights the importance of getting migraine-related information out there so that when people talk to their friends and family, they’re receiving accurate information,” said Dr. Seng.

When asked about the path to a diagnosis, respondents reported consulting an average of four providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis. “That’s pretty remarkable,” Dr. Seng said.

An increase in frequency or severity of migraine attacks or attacks that interfered with work or school “pushed people over the threshold to seek care,” Dr. Seng said. 

A subset of patients was asked about the factors they believed could help with migraine attacks. Of these, 80% cited diet and 70% stress reduction. Supplements, exercise, and relaxation techniques were cited much less frequently, said Dr. Seng. 

The mean age of respondents’ migraine diagnosis was 26 years, so there was about 18 years from the time of diagnosis to participation in the survey, which could introduce recall bias. Other potential limitations included the fact that the survey had no open-ended questions, and men and ethnic minorities were underrepresented. 
 

Useful Data

Commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, president, Brain Performance Center and Research Institute, and director of the Headache Center at The Neuron Clinic, San Diego, California, said the survey findings are “very useful” and highlight “significant opportunities for improvement in migraine education for clinicians and people living with migraine disease.”

The fact that participants reported consulting an average of four healthcare providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis underscores the importance of providing clinicians with tools to identify migraine, she said.

This is especially relevant as new migraine therapies that may improve efficacy and have fewer side effects become available, she added. 

“It would be interesting to see in future studies if migraine recognition by non-headache specialists improved after CGRP-blocking medications for migraine management became available,” said Dr. Riggins, who is cochair of the AHS First Contact program which is aimed at improving headache management in primary care.

She added that she and her colleagues will keep these survey results in mind when creating future educational materials for clinicians.

The study was supported by Eli Lily. Dr. Seng is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Theranica, and Abbvie, and receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Veterans Health Administration, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Riggins reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Nearly one in three patients with migraine are reluctant to seek medical help and many blame healthcare providers, results of a recent survey showed.

Participants cited concerns that their complaints would be dismissed, a belief that healthcare providers could offer no additional help, and a prior unsuccessful clinician visit as reasons for not seeking care. Survey respondents saw an average of four clinicians before finally receiving a diagnosis.

“I was shocked that a third of patients were reluctant to seek care,” said study investigator Elizabeth K. Seng, PhD, associate professor, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, and research associate professor, department of neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. “That just shows a much higher level of medical distress than I expected from this community of people who are obviously suffering from this significant neurologic disease.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

‘Significant Disease’

The study included 500 adults with migraine (mean age, 40 years) who signed up for a patient support group sponsored by Eli Lilly and completed a comprehensive survey. Respondents were mostly female, White, non-Hispanic, and well-educated individuals.

Half of participants had episodic migraines, and half had chronic migraines; 46% reported experiencing anxiety and 33% reported depression.

Almost all respondents had initiated treatment with a first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody.

“These are people who have significant enough disease that eventually they needed our top-tier preventive medication,” Dr. Seng said.

Participants answered a variety of questions pertaining to disease factors and treatment seeking. Just over 70% said they suspected they had migraine prior to diagnosis, “which means for almost 30%, it was a surprise when they received the diagnosis,” said Dr. Seng. 

Nearly 40% reported that a relative first suggested they may have migraine, and 33% suspected it themselves. Only 17.4% said a healthcare provider suggested they may have the condition.

Almost a third of respondents (30.5%) reported they were reluctant to seek medical help.

“Some said they didn’t think their physician could do anything more than they were already doing for themselves, or that they’d be taken seriously, or they had had talked to doctors before and this wasn’t helpful,” said Dr. Seng. 

These responses speak to the need for better public health messaging, she said. “People have this idea that migraine attacks aren’t a big deal when, in fact, these attacks area big deal and certainly deserve treatment.” 

Family and friends were participants’ most common source of information on migraine, followed by the Internet. “This highlights the importance of getting migraine-related information out there so that when people talk to their friends and family, they’re receiving accurate information,” said Dr. Seng.

When asked about the path to a diagnosis, respondents reported consulting an average of four providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis. “That’s pretty remarkable,” Dr. Seng said.

An increase in frequency or severity of migraine attacks or attacks that interfered with work or school “pushed people over the threshold to seek care,” Dr. Seng said. 

A subset of patients was asked about the factors they believed could help with migraine attacks. Of these, 80% cited diet and 70% stress reduction. Supplements, exercise, and relaxation techniques were cited much less frequently, said Dr. Seng. 

The mean age of respondents’ migraine diagnosis was 26 years, so there was about 18 years from the time of diagnosis to participation in the survey, which could introduce recall bias. Other potential limitations included the fact that the survey had no open-ended questions, and men and ethnic minorities were underrepresented. 
 

Useful Data

Commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, president, Brain Performance Center and Research Institute, and director of the Headache Center at The Neuron Clinic, San Diego, California, said the survey findings are “very useful” and highlight “significant opportunities for improvement in migraine education for clinicians and people living with migraine disease.”

The fact that participants reported consulting an average of four healthcare providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis underscores the importance of providing clinicians with tools to identify migraine, she said.

This is especially relevant as new migraine therapies that may improve efficacy and have fewer side effects become available, she added. 

“It would be interesting to see in future studies if migraine recognition by non-headache specialists improved after CGRP-blocking medications for migraine management became available,” said Dr. Riggins, who is cochair of the AHS First Contact program which is aimed at improving headache management in primary care.

She added that she and her colleagues will keep these survey results in mind when creating future educational materials for clinicians.

The study was supported by Eli Lily. Dr. Seng is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Theranica, and Abbvie, and receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Veterans Health Administration, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Riggins reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Nearly one in three patients with migraine are reluctant to seek medical help and many blame healthcare providers, results of a recent survey showed.

Participants cited concerns that their complaints would be dismissed, a belief that healthcare providers could offer no additional help, and a prior unsuccessful clinician visit as reasons for not seeking care. Survey respondents saw an average of four clinicians before finally receiving a diagnosis.

“I was shocked that a third of patients were reluctant to seek care,” said study investigator Elizabeth K. Seng, PhD, associate professor, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, and research associate professor, department of neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. “That just shows a much higher level of medical distress than I expected from this community of people who are obviously suffering from this significant neurologic disease.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

‘Significant Disease’

The study included 500 adults with migraine (mean age, 40 years) who signed up for a patient support group sponsored by Eli Lilly and completed a comprehensive survey. Respondents were mostly female, White, non-Hispanic, and well-educated individuals.

Half of participants had episodic migraines, and half had chronic migraines; 46% reported experiencing anxiety and 33% reported depression.

Almost all respondents had initiated treatment with a first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody.

“These are people who have significant enough disease that eventually they needed our top-tier preventive medication,” Dr. Seng said.

Participants answered a variety of questions pertaining to disease factors and treatment seeking. Just over 70% said they suspected they had migraine prior to diagnosis, “which means for almost 30%, it was a surprise when they received the diagnosis,” said Dr. Seng. 

Nearly 40% reported that a relative first suggested they may have migraine, and 33% suspected it themselves. Only 17.4% said a healthcare provider suggested they may have the condition.

Almost a third of respondents (30.5%) reported they were reluctant to seek medical help.

“Some said they didn’t think their physician could do anything more than they were already doing for themselves, or that they’d be taken seriously, or they had had talked to doctors before and this wasn’t helpful,” said Dr. Seng. 

These responses speak to the need for better public health messaging, she said. “People have this idea that migraine attacks aren’t a big deal when, in fact, these attacks area big deal and certainly deserve treatment.” 

Family and friends were participants’ most common source of information on migraine, followed by the Internet. “This highlights the importance of getting migraine-related information out there so that when people talk to their friends and family, they’re receiving accurate information,” said Dr. Seng.

When asked about the path to a diagnosis, respondents reported consulting an average of four providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis. “That’s pretty remarkable,” Dr. Seng said.

An increase in frequency or severity of migraine attacks or attacks that interfered with work or school “pushed people over the threshold to seek care,” Dr. Seng said. 

A subset of patients was asked about the factors they believed could help with migraine attacks. Of these, 80% cited diet and 70% stress reduction. Supplements, exercise, and relaxation techniques were cited much less frequently, said Dr. Seng. 

The mean age of respondents’ migraine diagnosis was 26 years, so there was about 18 years from the time of diagnosis to participation in the survey, which could introduce recall bias. Other potential limitations included the fact that the survey had no open-ended questions, and men and ethnic minorities were underrepresented. 
 

Useful Data

Commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, president, Brain Performance Center and Research Institute, and director of the Headache Center at The Neuron Clinic, San Diego, California, said the survey findings are “very useful” and highlight “significant opportunities for improvement in migraine education for clinicians and people living with migraine disease.”

The fact that participants reported consulting an average of four healthcare providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis underscores the importance of providing clinicians with tools to identify migraine, she said.

This is especially relevant as new migraine therapies that may improve efficacy and have fewer side effects become available, she added. 

“It would be interesting to see in future studies if migraine recognition by non-headache specialists improved after CGRP-blocking medications for migraine management became available,” said Dr. Riggins, who is cochair of the AHS First Contact program which is aimed at improving headache management in primary care.

She added that she and her colleagues will keep these survey results in mind when creating future educational materials for clinicians.

The study was supported by Eli Lily. Dr. Seng is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Theranica, and Abbvie, and receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Veterans Health Administration, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Riggins reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An intensive lifestyle intervention significantly improved cognition and function in many patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, in what authors said is the first randomized controlled trial of intensive lifestyle modification for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Results could help physicians address patients at risk of Alzheimer’s disease who reject relevant testing because they believe nothing can forestall development of the disease, the authors added. The study was published online in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.

Although technology allows probable Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis years before clinical symptoms appear, wrote investigators led by Dean Ornish, MD, of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, “many people do not want to know if they are likely to get Alzheimer’s disease if they do not believe they can do anything about it. If intensive lifestyle changes may cause improvement in cognition and function in MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, then it is reasonable to think that these lifestyle changes may also help to prevent MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.” As with cardiovascular disease, the authors added, preventing Alzheimer’s disease might require less intensive lifestyle modifications than treating it.
 

Study Methodology

Investigators randomized 26 patients with Montréal Cognitive Assessment scores of 18 or higher to an intensive intervention involving nutrition, exercise, and stress management techniques. To improve adherence, the protocol included participants’ spouses or caregivers.

Two patients, both in the treatment group, withdrew over logistical concerns.

After 20 weeks, treated patients exhibited statistically significant differences in several key measures versus a 25-patient usual-care control group. Scores that improved in the intervention group and worsened among controls included the following:

• Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC, P = .001)
• Clinical Dementia Rating-Global (CDR-Global, -0.04, P = .037)
• Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB, +0.08, P = .032)
• Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog, -1.01, P = .053)

The validity of these changes in cognition and function, and possible biological mechanisms of improvement, were supported by statistically significant improvements in several clinically relevant biomarkers versus controls, the investigators wrote. These biomarkers included Abeta42/40 ratio, HbA1c, insulin, and glycoprotein acetylation. “This information may also help in predicting which patients are more likely to show improvements in cognition and function by making these intensive lifestyle changes,” the authors added.

In primary analysis, the degree of lifestyle changes required to stop progression of MCI ranged from 71.4% (ADAS-Cog) to 120.6% (CDR-SB). “This helps to explain why other studies of less intensive lifestyle interventions may not have been sufficient to stop deterioration or improve cognition and function,” the authors wrote. Moreover, they added, variable adherence might explain why in the intervention group, 10 patients improved their CGIC scores, while the rest held static or worsened.
 

Caveats

Alzheimer’s Association Vice President of Medical and Scientific Relations Heather M. Snyder, PhD, said, “This is an interesting paper in an important area of research and adds to the growing body of literature on how behavior or lifestyle may be related to cognitive decline. However, because this is a small phase 2 study, it is important for this or similar work to be done in larger, more diverse populations and over a longer duration of the intervention.” She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Investigators chose the 20-week duration, they explained, because control-group patients likely would not refrain from trying the lifestyle intervention beyond that timeframe. Perhaps more importantly, challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic required researchers to cut planned enrollment in half, eliminate planned MRI and amyloid PET scans, and reduce the number of cognition and function tests.

Such shortcomings limit what neurologists can glean and generalize from the study, said Dr. Snyder. “That said,” she added, “it does demonstrate the potential of an intensive behavior/lifestyle intervention, and the importance of this sort of research in Alzheimer’s and dementia.” Although the complexity of the interventions makes these studies challenging, she added, “it is important that we continue to advance larger, longer studies in more representative study populations to develop specific recommendations.”
 

Further Study

The Alzheimer’s Association’s U.S. POINTER study is the first large-scale study in the United States to explore the impact of comprehensive lifestyle changes on cognitive health. About 2000 older adults at risk for cognitive decline are participating, from diverse locations across the country. More than 25% of participants come from groups typically underrepresented in dementia research, said Dr. Snyder. Initial results are expected in summer 2025.

Future research also should explore reasons (beyond adherence) why some patients respond to lifestyle interventions better than others, and the potential synergy of lifestyle changes with drug therapies, wrote Dr. Ornish and colleagues.

“For now,” said Dr. Snyder, “there is an opportunity for providers to incorporate or expand messaging with their patients and families about the habits that they can incorporate into their daily lives. The Alzheimer’s Association offers 10 Healthy Habits for Your Brain — everyday actions that can make a difference for your brain health.”

Investigators received study funding from more than two dozen charitable foundations and other organizations. Dr. Snyder is a full-time employee of the Alzheimer’s Association and in this role, serves on the leadership team of the U.S. POINTER study. Her partner works for Abbott in an unrelated field. 

An intensive lifestyle intervention significantly improved cognition and function in many patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, in what authors said is the first randomized controlled trial of intensive lifestyle modification for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Results could help physicians address patients at risk of Alzheimer’s disease who reject relevant testing because they believe nothing can forestall development of the disease, the authors added. The study was published online in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.

Although technology allows probable Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis years before clinical symptoms appear, wrote investigators led by Dean Ornish, MD, of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, “many people do not want to know if they are likely to get Alzheimer’s disease if they do not believe they can do anything about it. If intensive lifestyle changes may cause improvement in cognition and function in MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, then it is reasonable to think that these lifestyle changes may also help to prevent MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.” As with cardiovascular disease, the authors added, preventing Alzheimer’s disease might require less intensive lifestyle modifications than treating it.
 

Study Methodology

Investigators randomized 26 patients with Montréal Cognitive Assessment scores of 18 or higher to an intensive intervention involving nutrition, exercise, and stress management techniques. To improve adherence, the protocol included participants’ spouses or caregivers.

Two patients, both in the treatment group, withdrew over logistical concerns.

After 20 weeks, treated patients exhibited statistically significant differences in several key measures versus a 25-patient usual-care control group. Scores that improved in the intervention group and worsened among controls included the following:

• Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC, P = .001)
• Clinical Dementia Rating-Global (CDR-Global, -0.04, P = .037)
• Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB, +0.08, P = .032)
• Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog, -1.01, P = .053)

The validity of these changes in cognition and function, and possible biological mechanisms of improvement, were supported by statistically significant improvements in several clinically relevant biomarkers versus controls, the investigators wrote. These biomarkers included Abeta42/40 ratio, HbA1c, insulin, and glycoprotein acetylation. “This information may also help in predicting which patients are more likely to show improvements in cognition and function by making these intensive lifestyle changes,” the authors added.

In primary analysis, the degree of lifestyle changes required to stop progression of MCI ranged from 71.4% (ADAS-Cog) to 120.6% (CDR-SB). “This helps to explain why other studies of less intensive lifestyle interventions may not have been sufficient to stop deterioration or improve cognition and function,” the authors wrote. Moreover, they added, variable adherence might explain why in the intervention group, 10 patients improved their CGIC scores, while the rest held static or worsened.
 

Caveats

Alzheimer’s Association Vice President of Medical and Scientific Relations Heather M. Snyder, PhD, said, “This is an interesting paper in an important area of research and adds to the growing body of literature on how behavior or lifestyle may be related to cognitive decline. However, because this is a small phase 2 study, it is important for this or similar work to be done in larger, more diverse populations and over a longer duration of the intervention.” She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Investigators chose the 20-week duration, they explained, because control-group patients likely would not refrain from trying the lifestyle intervention beyond that timeframe. Perhaps more importantly, challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic required researchers to cut planned enrollment in half, eliminate planned MRI and amyloid PET scans, and reduce the number of cognition and function tests.

Such shortcomings limit what neurologists can glean and generalize from the study, said Dr. Snyder. “That said,” she added, “it does demonstrate the potential of an intensive behavior/lifestyle intervention, and the importance of this sort of research in Alzheimer’s and dementia.” Although the complexity of the interventions makes these studies challenging, she added, “it is important that we continue to advance larger, longer studies in more representative study populations to develop specific recommendations.”
 

Further Study

The Alzheimer’s Association’s U.S. POINTER study is the first large-scale study in the United States to explore the impact of comprehensive lifestyle changes on cognitive health. About 2000 older adults at risk for cognitive decline are participating, from diverse locations across the country. More than 25% of participants come from groups typically underrepresented in dementia research, said Dr. Snyder. Initial results are expected in summer 2025.

Future research also should explore reasons (beyond adherence) why some patients respond to lifestyle interventions better than others, and the potential synergy of lifestyle changes with drug therapies, wrote Dr. Ornish and colleagues.

“For now,” said Dr. Snyder, “there is an opportunity for providers to incorporate or expand messaging with their patients and families about the habits that they can incorporate into their daily lives. The Alzheimer’s Association offers 10 Healthy Habits for Your Brain — everyday actions that can make a difference for your brain health.”

Investigators received study funding from more than two dozen charitable foundations and other organizations. Dr. Snyder is a full-time employee of the Alzheimer’s Association and in this role, serves on the leadership team of the U.S. POINTER study. Her partner works for Abbott in an unrelated field. 

An intensive lifestyle intervention significantly improved cognition and function in many patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, in what authors said is the first randomized controlled trial of intensive lifestyle modification for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Results could help physicians address patients at risk of Alzheimer’s disease who reject relevant testing because they believe nothing can forestall development of the disease, the authors added. The study was published online in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.

Although technology allows probable Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis years before clinical symptoms appear, wrote investigators led by Dean Ornish, MD, of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, “many people do not want to know if they are likely to get Alzheimer’s disease if they do not believe they can do anything about it. If intensive lifestyle changes may cause improvement in cognition and function in MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, then it is reasonable to think that these lifestyle changes may also help to prevent MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.” As with cardiovascular disease, the authors added, preventing Alzheimer’s disease might require less intensive lifestyle modifications than treating it.
 

Study Methodology

Investigators randomized 26 patients with Montréal Cognitive Assessment scores of 18 or higher to an intensive intervention involving nutrition, exercise, and stress management techniques. To improve adherence, the protocol included participants’ spouses or caregivers.

Two patients, both in the treatment group, withdrew over logistical concerns.

After 20 weeks, treated patients exhibited statistically significant differences in several key measures versus a 25-patient usual-care control group. Scores that improved in the intervention group and worsened among controls included the following:

• Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC, P = .001)
• Clinical Dementia Rating-Global (CDR-Global, -0.04, P = .037)
• Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB, +0.08, P = .032)
• Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog, -1.01, P = .053)

The validity of these changes in cognition and function, and possible biological mechanisms of improvement, were supported by statistically significant improvements in several clinically relevant biomarkers versus controls, the investigators wrote. These biomarkers included Abeta42/40 ratio, HbA1c, insulin, and glycoprotein acetylation. “This information may also help in predicting which patients are more likely to show improvements in cognition and function by making these intensive lifestyle changes,” the authors added.

In primary analysis, the degree of lifestyle changes required to stop progression of MCI ranged from 71.4% (ADAS-Cog) to 120.6% (CDR-SB). “This helps to explain why other studies of less intensive lifestyle interventions may not have been sufficient to stop deterioration or improve cognition and function,” the authors wrote. Moreover, they added, variable adherence might explain why in the intervention group, 10 patients improved their CGIC scores, while the rest held static or worsened.
 

Caveats

Alzheimer’s Association Vice President of Medical and Scientific Relations Heather M. Snyder, PhD, said, “This is an interesting paper in an important area of research and adds to the growing body of literature on how behavior or lifestyle may be related to cognitive decline. However, because this is a small phase 2 study, it is important for this or similar work to be done in larger, more diverse populations and over a longer duration of the intervention.” She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Investigators chose the 20-week duration, they explained, because control-group patients likely would not refrain from trying the lifestyle intervention beyond that timeframe. Perhaps more importantly, challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic required researchers to cut planned enrollment in half, eliminate planned MRI and amyloid PET scans, and reduce the number of cognition and function tests.

Such shortcomings limit what neurologists can glean and generalize from the study, said Dr. Snyder. “That said,” she added, “it does demonstrate the potential of an intensive behavior/lifestyle intervention, and the importance of this sort of research in Alzheimer’s and dementia.” Although the complexity of the interventions makes these studies challenging, she added, “it is important that we continue to advance larger, longer studies in more representative study populations to develop specific recommendations.”
 

Further Study

The Alzheimer’s Association’s U.S. POINTER study is the first large-scale study in the United States to explore the impact of comprehensive lifestyle changes on cognitive health. About 2000 older adults at risk for cognitive decline are participating, from diverse locations across the country. More than 25% of participants come from groups typically underrepresented in dementia research, said Dr. Snyder. Initial results are expected in summer 2025.

Future research also should explore reasons (beyond adherence) why some patients respond to lifestyle interventions better than others, and the potential synergy of lifestyle changes with drug therapies, wrote Dr. Ornish and colleagues.

“For now,” said Dr. Snyder, “there is an opportunity for providers to incorporate or expand messaging with their patients and families about the habits that they can incorporate into their daily lives. The Alzheimer’s Association offers 10 Healthy Habits for Your Brain — everyday actions that can make a difference for your brain health.”

Investigators received study funding from more than two dozen charitable foundations and other organizations. Dr. Snyder is a full-time employee of the Alzheimer’s Association and in this role, serves on the leadership team of the U.S. POINTER study. Her partner works for Abbott in an unrelated field. 

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Szperka_Christina_Phila_web.jpg

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Szperka_Christina_Phila_web.jpg

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Szperka_Christina_Phila_web.jpg

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

Using combined genetic testing in early childhood may decrease the misdiagnosis rate for Global Development Delay (GDD) and may help identify intervention targets, a new study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jiamei Zhang, MS, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, in a multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled patients ages 12 to 60 months with GDD from six centers in China from July 2020 through August 2023. Participants underwent trio whole exome sequencing (trio-WES) paired with copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq).

“To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the largest prospective examination of combined genetic testing methods in a GDD cohort,” the authors reported in JAMA Network Open.

GDD is a common neurodevelopmental disorder, marked by cognitive impairment, and affects about 1% of children, the paper states. Most children with GDD develop intellectual disability (ID) after 5 years of age, with implications for quality of life, their physical abilities, and social functioning. Early and accurate diagnosis followed by appropriately targeted treatment is critical, but lacking. Researchers note that there is lack of consensus among health care professionals on whether genetic testing is necessary.

Genetics are known to play a significant role in pathogenesis of GDD, but definitive biomarkers have been elusive.
 

Positive Detection Rate of 61%

In this study, the combined use of trio-WES with CNV-seq in children with early-stage GDD resulted in a positive detection rate of 61%, a significant improvement over performing individual tests, “enhancing the positive detection rate by 18%-40%,” the researchers wrote. The combined approach also saves families time and costs, they note, while leading to more comprehensive genetic analysis and fewer missed diagnoses.

The combined approach also addressed the limitations of trio-WES and CNV-seq used alone, the authors wrote. Because of technological constraints, trio-WES may miss 55% of CNV variations, and CNV-seq has a missed diagnosis rate of 3%.

The study included 434 patients with GDD (60% male; average age, 25 months) with diverse degrees of cognitive impairment: mild (23%); moderate (32%); severe (28%); and profound (17%).

Three characteristics were linked with higher likelihood of having genetic variants: Craniofacial abnormalities (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-3.56); moderate or severe cognitive impairment (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.05-2.70); and age between 12 and 24 months (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.05-2.35).
 

Dopaminergic Pathway Promising for Treatment

Researchers also discovered that GDD-related genes were primarily enriched in lysosome, dopaminergic synapse, and lysine degradation pathways. Dopaminergic synapse emerged as a significant pathway linked with GDD.

“In this cohort study, our findings support the correlation between dopaminergic synapse and cognitive impairment, as substantiated by prior research and animal models. Therefore, targeting the dopaminergic pathway holds promise for treating GDD and ID,” the authors wrote.

However, the authors note in the limitations that they used only a subset of 100 patients with GDD to measure dopamine concentration.

“Expanding the sample size and conducting in vivo and in vitro experiments are necessary steps to verify whether dopamine can be targeted for clinical precision medical intervention in patients with GDD,” they wrote.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

Using combined genetic testing in early childhood may decrease the misdiagnosis rate for Global Development Delay (GDD) and may help identify intervention targets, a new study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jiamei Zhang, MS, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, in a multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled patients ages 12 to 60 months with GDD from six centers in China from July 2020 through August 2023. Participants underwent trio whole exome sequencing (trio-WES) paired with copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq).

“To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the largest prospective examination of combined genetic testing methods in a GDD cohort,” the authors reported in JAMA Network Open.

GDD is a common neurodevelopmental disorder, marked by cognitive impairment, and affects about 1% of children, the paper states. Most children with GDD develop intellectual disability (ID) after 5 years of age, with implications for quality of life, their physical abilities, and social functioning. Early and accurate diagnosis followed by appropriately targeted treatment is critical, but lacking. Researchers note that there is lack of consensus among health care professionals on whether genetic testing is necessary.

Genetics are known to play a significant role in pathogenesis of GDD, but definitive biomarkers have been elusive.
 

Positive Detection Rate of 61%

In this study, the combined use of trio-WES with CNV-seq in children with early-stage GDD resulted in a positive detection rate of 61%, a significant improvement over performing individual tests, “enhancing the positive detection rate by 18%-40%,” the researchers wrote. The combined approach also saves families time and costs, they note, while leading to more comprehensive genetic analysis and fewer missed diagnoses.

The combined approach also addressed the limitations of trio-WES and CNV-seq used alone, the authors wrote. Because of technological constraints, trio-WES may miss 55% of CNV variations, and CNV-seq has a missed diagnosis rate of 3%.

The study included 434 patients with GDD (60% male; average age, 25 months) with diverse degrees of cognitive impairment: mild (23%); moderate (32%); severe (28%); and profound (17%).

Three characteristics were linked with higher likelihood of having genetic variants: Craniofacial abnormalities (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-3.56); moderate or severe cognitive impairment (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.05-2.70); and age between 12 and 24 months (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.05-2.35).
 

Dopaminergic Pathway Promising for Treatment

Researchers also discovered that GDD-related genes were primarily enriched in lysosome, dopaminergic synapse, and lysine degradation pathways. Dopaminergic synapse emerged as a significant pathway linked with GDD.

“In this cohort study, our findings support the correlation between dopaminergic synapse and cognitive impairment, as substantiated by prior research and animal models. Therefore, targeting the dopaminergic pathway holds promise for treating GDD and ID,” the authors wrote.

However, the authors note in the limitations that they used only a subset of 100 patients with GDD to measure dopamine concentration.

“Expanding the sample size and conducting in vivo and in vitro experiments are necessary steps to verify whether dopamine can be targeted for clinical precision medical intervention in patients with GDD,” they wrote.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

Using combined genetic testing in early childhood may decrease the misdiagnosis rate for Global Development Delay (GDD) and may help identify intervention targets, a new study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jiamei Zhang, MS, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, in a multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled patients ages 12 to 60 months with GDD from six centers in China from July 2020 through August 2023. Participants underwent trio whole exome sequencing (trio-WES) paired with copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq).

“To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the largest prospective examination of combined genetic testing methods in a GDD cohort,” the authors reported in JAMA Network Open.

GDD is a common neurodevelopmental disorder, marked by cognitive impairment, and affects about 1% of children, the paper states. Most children with GDD develop intellectual disability (ID) after 5 years of age, with implications for quality of life, their physical abilities, and social functioning. Early and accurate diagnosis followed by appropriately targeted treatment is critical, but lacking. Researchers note that there is lack of consensus among health care professionals on whether genetic testing is necessary.

Genetics are known to play a significant role in pathogenesis of GDD, but definitive biomarkers have been elusive.
 

Positive Detection Rate of 61%

In this study, the combined use of trio-WES with CNV-seq in children with early-stage GDD resulted in a positive detection rate of 61%, a significant improvement over performing individual tests, “enhancing the positive detection rate by 18%-40%,” the researchers wrote. The combined approach also saves families time and costs, they note, while leading to more comprehensive genetic analysis and fewer missed diagnoses.

The combined approach also addressed the limitations of trio-WES and CNV-seq used alone, the authors wrote. Because of technological constraints, trio-WES may miss 55% of CNV variations, and CNV-seq has a missed diagnosis rate of 3%.

The study included 434 patients with GDD (60% male; average age, 25 months) with diverse degrees of cognitive impairment: mild (23%); moderate (32%); severe (28%); and profound (17%).

Three characteristics were linked with higher likelihood of having genetic variants: Craniofacial abnormalities (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-3.56); moderate or severe cognitive impairment (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.05-2.70); and age between 12 and 24 months (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.05-2.35).
 

Dopaminergic Pathway Promising for Treatment

Researchers also discovered that GDD-related genes were primarily enriched in lysosome, dopaminergic synapse, and lysine degradation pathways. Dopaminergic synapse emerged as a significant pathway linked with GDD.

“In this cohort study, our findings support the correlation between dopaminergic synapse and cognitive impairment, as substantiated by prior research and animal models. Therefore, targeting the dopaminergic pathway holds promise for treating GDD and ID,” the authors wrote.

However, the authors note in the limitations that they used only a subset of 100 patients with GDD to measure dopamine concentration.

“Expanding the sample size and conducting in vivo and in vitro experiments are necessary steps to verify whether dopamine can be targeted for clinical precision medical intervention in patients with GDD,” they wrote.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.