The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Key clinical point: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) have a 2- to 3-fold higher incidence of depression than those without MS.

Major finding: A significantly higher incidence of depression was observed among patients with MS vs. non-MS control individuals in the US (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 3.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.05-3.35) and the UK (IRR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.74-2.06).

Study details: This cohort study included individuals with a first recorded diagnosis of MS and matched non-MS individuals identified from the US Department of Defense military healthcare system and the UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Celgene Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Sally Lee, Neil Minton, Steve Niemcryk, and Anders Lindholm are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Amber M Evans is an employee of Health ResearchTx LLC, which has a business relationship with Celgene Corporation.

Citation: Persson R et al. Eur J Neurol. 2020 May 12. doi: 10.1111/ene.14314.

Key clinical point: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) have a 2- to 3-fold higher incidence of depression than those without MS.

Major finding: A significantly higher incidence of depression was observed among patients with MS vs. non-MS control individuals in the US (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 3.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.05-3.35) and the UK (IRR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.74-2.06).

Study details: This cohort study included individuals with a first recorded diagnosis of MS and matched non-MS individuals identified from the US Department of Defense military healthcare system and the UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Celgene Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Sally Lee, Neil Minton, Steve Niemcryk, and Anders Lindholm are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Amber M Evans is an employee of Health ResearchTx LLC, which has a business relationship with Celgene Corporation.

Citation: Persson R et al. Eur J Neurol. 2020 May 12. doi: 10.1111/ene.14314.

Key clinical point: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) have a 2- to 3-fold higher incidence of depression than those without MS.

Major finding: A significantly higher incidence of depression was observed among patients with MS vs. non-MS control individuals in the US (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 3.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.05-3.35) and the UK (IRR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.74-2.06).

Study details: This cohort study included individuals with a first recorded diagnosis of MS and matched non-MS individuals identified from the US Department of Defense military healthcare system and the UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Celgene Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Sally Lee, Neil Minton, Steve Niemcryk, and Anders Lindholm are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Amber M Evans is an employee of Health ResearchTx LLC, which has a business relationship with Celgene Corporation.

Citation: Persson R et al. Eur J Neurol. 2020 May 12. doi: 10.1111/ene.14314.

Further refinement of data from patients hospitalized worldwide for COVID-19 disease showed a 12% prevalence rate of patients with diabetes in this population and a 17% prevalence rate for hypertension.

Irina Shatilova/Getty Images

These are lower rates than previously reported for COVID-19 patients with either of these two comorbidities, yet the findings still document important epidemiologic links between diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19, said the study’s authors.

A meta-analysis of data from 15,794 patients hospitalized because of COVID-19 disease that was drawn from 65 carefully curated reports published from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, also showed that, among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with diabetes (either type 1 or type 2), the rate of patients who required ICU admission was 96% higher than among those without diabetes and mortality was 2.78-fold higher, both statistically significant differences.

The rate of ICU admissions among those hospitalized with COVID-19 who also had hypertension was 2.95-fold above those without hypertension, and mortality was 2.39-fold higher, also statistically significant differences, reported a team of researchers in the recently published report.

The new meta-analysis was notable for the extra effort investigators employed to eliminate duplicated patients from their database of COVID-19 patients included in various published reports, a potential source of bias that likely introduced errors into prior meta-analyses that used similar data. “We found an overwhelming proportion of studies at high risk of data repetition,” the report said. Virtually all of the included studies were retrospective case studies, nearly two-thirds had data from a single center, and 71% of the studies included only patients in China.

“We developed a method to identify reports that had a high risk for repetitions” of included patients, said Fady Hannah-Shmouni, MD, a senior author of the study. “We also used methods to minimize bias, we excluded certain patients populations, and we applied a uniform definition of COVID-19 disease severity,” specifically patients who died or needed ICU admission, because the definitions used originally by many of the reports were very heterogeneous, said Dr. Hannah-Shmouni, principal investigator for Endocrine, Genetics, and Hypertension at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Despite the effort to eliminate case duplications, the analysis remains subject to additional confounders, in part because of a lack of comprehensive patient information on factors such as smoking, body mass index, socioeconomic status, and the specific type of diabetes or hypertension a patient had. “Even with these limitations, we were able to show that the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes is elevated in patients with COVID-19, that patients with diabetes have increased risk for both death and ICU admissions, and that there is the potential for reverse causality in the reporting of hypertension as a risk factor for COVID-19,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said in an interview. “We believe the explosion of data that associated hypertension and COVID-19 may be partially the result of reverse causality.”

One possible example of this reverse causality is the overlap between hypertension and age as potential risk factors for COVID-19 disease or increased infection severity. People “older than 80 frequently develop severe disease if infected with the novel coronavirus, and 80% of people older than 80 have hypertension, so it’s not surprising that hypertension is highly prevalent among hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” but this “does not imply a causal relationship between hypertension and severe COVID-19; the risk of hypertension probably depends on older age,” noted Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD, a coauthor of the study, as well as professor of medicine at McGill University and director of the Hypertension and Vascular Research Unit at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, both in Montreal. “My current opinion, on the basis of the totality of data, is that hypertension does not worsen [COVID-19] outcomes, but patients who are elderly, obese, diabetic, or immunocompromised are susceptible to more severe COVID-19 and worse outcomes,” said Dr. Schiffrin in an interview.

The new findings show “there is certainly an interplay between the virus, diabetes, and hypertension and other risk factors,” and while still limited by biases, the new findings “get closer” to correctly estimating the COVID-19 risks associated with these comorbidities,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said.

The connections identified between COVID-19, diabetes, and hypertension mean that patients with these chronic diseases should receive education about their COVID-19 risks and should have adequate access to the drugs and supplies they need to control blood pressure and hyperglycemia. Patients with diabetes also need to be current on vaccinations to reduce their risk for pneumonia. And recognition of the heightened COVID-19 risk for people with these comorbidities is important among people who work in relevant government agencies, health care workers, and patient advocacy groups, he added.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hannah-Shmouni and Dr. Schiffrin had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barrera FJ et al. J Endocn Soc. 2020 July 21. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa102.

Further refinement of data from patients hospitalized worldwide for COVID-19 disease showed a 12% prevalence rate of patients with diabetes in this population and a 17% prevalence rate for hypertension.

Irina Shatilova/Getty Images

These are lower rates than previously reported for COVID-19 patients with either of these two comorbidities, yet the findings still document important epidemiologic links between diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19, said the study’s authors.

A meta-analysis of data from 15,794 patients hospitalized because of COVID-19 disease that was drawn from 65 carefully curated reports published from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, also showed that, among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with diabetes (either type 1 or type 2), the rate of patients who required ICU admission was 96% higher than among those without diabetes and mortality was 2.78-fold higher, both statistically significant differences.

The rate of ICU admissions among those hospitalized with COVID-19 who also had hypertension was 2.95-fold above those without hypertension, and mortality was 2.39-fold higher, also statistically significant differences, reported a team of researchers in the recently published report.

The new meta-analysis was notable for the extra effort investigators employed to eliminate duplicated patients from their database of COVID-19 patients included in various published reports, a potential source of bias that likely introduced errors into prior meta-analyses that used similar data. “We found an overwhelming proportion of studies at high risk of data repetition,” the report said. Virtually all of the included studies were retrospective case studies, nearly two-thirds had data from a single center, and 71% of the studies included only patients in China.

“We developed a method to identify reports that had a high risk for repetitions” of included patients, said Fady Hannah-Shmouni, MD, a senior author of the study. “We also used methods to minimize bias, we excluded certain patients populations, and we applied a uniform definition of COVID-19 disease severity,” specifically patients who died or needed ICU admission, because the definitions used originally by many of the reports were very heterogeneous, said Dr. Hannah-Shmouni, principal investigator for Endocrine, Genetics, and Hypertension at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Despite the effort to eliminate case duplications, the analysis remains subject to additional confounders, in part because of a lack of comprehensive patient information on factors such as smoking, body mass index, socioeconomic status, and the specific type of diabetes or hypertension a patient had. “Even with these limitations, we were able to show that the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes is elevated in patients with COVID-19, that patients with diabetes have increased risk for both death and ICU admissions, and that there is the potential for reverse causality in the reporting of hypertension as a risk factor for COVID-19,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said in an interview. “We believe the explosion of data that associated hypertension and COVID-19 may be partially the result of reverse causality.”

One possible example of this reverse causality is the overlap between hypertension and age as potential risk factors for COVID-19 disease or increased infection severity. People “older than 80 frequently develop severe disease if infected with the novel coronavirus, and 80% of people older than 80 have hypertension, so it’s not surprising that hypertension is highly prevalent among hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” but this “does not imply a causal relationship between hypertension and severe COVID-19; the risk of hypertension probably depends on older age,” noted Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD, a coauthor of the study, as well as professor of medicine at McGill University and director of the Hypertension and Vascular Research Unit at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, both in Montreal. “My current opinion, on the basis of the totality of data, is that hypertension does not worsen [COVID-19] outcomes, but patients who are elderly, obese, diabetic, or immunocompromised are susceptible to more severe COVID-19 and worse outcomes,” said Dr. Schiffrin in an interview.

The new findings show “there is certainly an interplay between the virus, diabetes, and hypertension and other risk factors,” and while still limited by biases, the new findings “get closer” to correctly estimating the COVID-19 risks associated with these comorbidities,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said.

The connections identified between COVID-19, diabetes, and hypertension mean that patients with these chronic diseases should receive education about their COVID-19 risks and should have adequate access to the drugs and supplies they need to control blood pressure and hyperglycemia. Patients with diabetes also need to be current on vaccinations to reduce their risk for pneumonia. And recognition of the heightened COVID-19 risk for people with these comorbidities is important among people who work in relevant government agencies, health care workers, and patient advocacy groups, he added.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hannah-Shmouni and Dr. Schiffrin had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barrera FJ et al. J Endocn Soc. 2020 July 21. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa102.

Further refinement of data from patients hospitalized worldwide for COVID-19 disease showed a 12% prevalence rate of patients with diabetes in this population and a 17% prevalence rate for hypertension.

Irina Shatilova/Getty Images

These are lower rates than previously reported for COVID-19 patients with either of these two comorbidities, yet the findings still document important epidemiologic links between diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19, said the study’s authors.

A meta-analysis of data from 15,794 patients hospitalized because of COVID-19 disease that was drawn from 65 carefully curated reports published from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, also showed that, among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with diabetes (either type 1 or type 2), the rate of patients who required ICU admission was 96% higher than among those without diabetes and mortality was 2.78-fold higher, both statistically significant differences.

The rate of ICU admissions among those hospitalized with COVID-19 who also had hypertension was 2.95-fold above those without hypertension, and mortality was 2.39-fold higher, also statistically significant differences, reported a team of researchers in the recently published report.

The new meta-analysis was notable for the extra effort investigators employed to eliminate duplicated patients from their database of COVID-19 patients included in various published reports, a potential source of bias that likely introduced errors into prior meta-analyses that used similar data. “We found an overwhelming proportion of studies at high risk of data repetition,” the report said. Virtually all of the included studies were retrospective case studies, nearly two-thirds had data from a single center, and 71% of the studies included only patients in China.

“We developed a method to identify reports that had a high risk for repetitions” of included patients, said Fady Hannah-Shmouni, MD, a senior author of the study. “We also used methods to minimize bias, we excluded certain patients populations, and we applied a uniform definition of COVID-19 disease severity,” specifically patients who died or needed ICU admission, because the definitions used originally by many of the reports were very heterogeneous, said Dr. Hannah-Shmouni, principal investigator for Endocrine, Genetics, and Hypertension at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Despite the effort to eliminate case duplications, the analysis remains subject to additional confounders, in part because of a lack of comprehensive patient information on factors such as smoking, body mass index, socioeconomic status, and the specific type of diabetes or hypertension a patient had. “Even with these limitations, we were able to show that the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes is elevated in patients with COVID-19, that patients with diabetes have increased risk for both death and ICU admissions, and that there is the potential for reverse causality in the reporting of hypertension as a risk factor for COVID-19,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said in an interview. “We believe the explosion of data that associated hypertension and COVID-19 may be partially the result of reverse causality.”

One possible example of this reverse causality is the overlap between hypertension and age as potential risk factors for COVID-19 disease or increased infection severity. People “older than 80 frequently develop severe disease if infected with the novel coronavirus, and 80% of people older than 80 have hypertension, so it’s not surprising that hypertension is highly prevalent among hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” but this “does not imply a causal relationship between hypertension and severe COVID-19; the risk of hypertension probably depends on older age,” noted Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD, a coauthor of the study, as well as professor of medicine at McGill University and director of the Hypertension and Vascular Research Unit at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, both in Montreal. “My current opinion, on the basis of the totality of data, is that hypertension does not worsen [COVID-19] outcomes, but patients who are elderly, obese, diabetic, or immunocompromised are susceptible to more severe COVID-19 and worse outcomes,” said Dr. Schiffrin in an interview.

The new findings show “there is certainly an interplay between the virus, diabetes, and hypertension and other risk factors,” and while still limited by biases, the new findings “get closer” to correctly estimating the COVID-19 risks associated with these comorbidities,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said.

The connections identified between COVID-19, diabetes, and hypertension mean that patients with these chronic diseases should receive education about their COVID-19 risks and should have adequate access to the drugs and supplies they need to control blood pressure and hyperglycemia. Patients with diabetes also need to be current on vaccinations to reduce their risk for pneumonia. And recognition of the heightened COVID-19 risk for people with these comorbidities is important among people who work in relevant government agencies, health care workers, and patient advocacy groups, he added.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hannah-Shmouni and Dr. Schiffrin had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barrera FJ et al. J Endocn Soc. 2020 July 21. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa102.

Key clinical point: Inflammatory activity declines with age in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), as evidenced by decreased gadolinium enhancement with advancing age.

Major finding: The odds for gadolinium enhancement decreased with advancing age up to 60 years (31-40 years: odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 41-50 years: OR, 0.42; and 51-60 years: OR, 0.24; P less than .0001 for all).

Study details: A cohort study of 1,543 patients with clinically isolated syndrome and MS assessed the association of risk factors, including age, with gadolinium enhancement on cranial magnetic resonance imaging scans.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Marcus W Koch and Wei-Qiao Liu reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Jop Mostert, Jamie Greenfield, and Prof Luanne Metz have declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Koch MW et al. J Neurol. 2020 May 09. doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-09895-0.

Key clinical point: Inflammatory activity declines with age in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), as evidenced by decreased gadolinium enhancement with advancing age.

Major finding: The odds for gadolinium enhancement decreased with advancing age up to 60 years (31-40 years: odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 41-50 years: OR, 0.42; and 51-60 years: OR, 0.24; P less than .0001 for all).

Study details: A cohort study of 1,543 patients with clinically isolated syndrome and MS assessed the association of risk factors, including age, with gadolinium enhancement on cranial magnetic resonance imaging scans.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Marcus W Koch and Wei-Qiao Liu reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Jop Mostert, Jamie Greenfield, and Prof Luanne Metz have declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Koch MW et al. J Neurol. 2020 May 09. doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-09895-0.

Key clinical point: Inflammatory activity declines with age in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), as evidenced by decreased gadolinium enhancement with advancing age.

Major finding: The odds for gadolinium enhancement decreased with advancing age up to 60 years (31-40 years: odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 41-50 years: OR, 0.42; and 51-60 years: OR, 0.24; P less than .0001 for all).

Study details: A cohort study of 1,543 patients with clinically isolated syndrome and MS assessed the association of risk factors, including age, with gadolinium enhancement on cranial magnetic resonance imaging scans.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Marcus W Koch and Wei-Qiao Liu reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Jop Mostert, Jamie Greenfield, and Prof Luanne Metz have declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Koch MW et al. J Neurol. 2020 May 09. doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-09895-0.

Key clinical point: Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) may slow down cognitive impairment in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).

Major finding: Of 34 patients with cognitive impairment at baseline, 55.9% of patients did not show evidence of cognitive worsening at 2 years.

Study details: This prospective single-arm study enrolled patients with RRMS (n=217) treated with DMF for 2 years.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Biogen. The authors reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Amato MP et al. Neurol Sci. 2020 May 01. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04320-w.

Key clinical point: Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) may slow down cognitive impairment in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).

Major finding: Of 34 patients with cognitive impairment at baseline, 55.9% of patients did not show evidence of cognitive worsening at 2 years.

Study details: This prospective single-arm study enrolled patients with RRMS (n=217) treated with DMF for 2 years.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Biogen. The authors reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Amato MP et al. Neurol Sci. 2020 May 01. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04320-w.

Key clinical point: Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) may slow down cognitive impairment in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).

Major finding: Of 34 patients with cognitive impairment at baseline, 55.9% of patients did not show evidence of cognitive worsening at 2 years.

Study details: This prospective single-arm study enrolled patients with RRMS (n=217) treated with DMF for 2 years.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Biogen. The authors reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Amato MP et al. Neurol Sci. 2020 May 01. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04320-w.

Key clinical point: Ocrelizumab is a potential stabilizing treatment option for both treatment-naïve and pretreated patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: Among all patients, 24% were treatment naïve and 76% had previously received immune therapies. After initiating ocrelizumab, 13% of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) or active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (aSPMS) had a relapse (annualized relapse rate, 0.17). Among all patients with MS, 5% experienced a 12-week confirmed disability progression. Side effects were mostly mild and reported in 22% of the patients.

Study details: A retrospective analysis of real-world data on patients with MS who had received 2 ocrelizumab (300 mg) cycles at 2-week intervals. Of 210 patients, 55 had primary progressive MS and 155 had RRMS or aSPMS.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the German Research Council. The authors reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Nicholas J et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Apr 26. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000719.

Key clinical point: Ocrelizumab is a potential stabilizing treatment option for both treatment-naïve and pretreated patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: Among all patients, 24% were treatment naïve and 76% had previously received immune therapies. After initiating ocrelizumab, 13% of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) or active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (aSPMS) had a relapse (annualized relapse rate, 0.17). Among all patients with MS, 5% experienced a 12-week confirmed disability progression. Side effects were mostly mild and reported in 22% of the patients.

Study details: A retrospective analysis of real-world data on patients with MS who had received 2 ocrelizumab (300 mg) cycles at 2-week intervals. Of 210 patients, 55 had primary progressive MS and 155 had RRMS or aSPMS.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the German Research Council. The authors reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Nicholas J et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Apr 26. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000719.

Key clinical point: Ocrelizumab is a potential stabilizing treatment option for both treatment-naïve and pretreated patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: Among all patients, 24% were treatment naïve and 76% had previously received immune therapies. After initiating ocrelizumab, 13% of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) or active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (aSPMS) had a relapse (annualized relapse rate, 0.17). Among all patients with MS, 5% experienced a 12-week confirmed disability progression. Side effects were mostly mild and reported in 22% of the patients.

Study details: A retrospective analysis of real-world data on patients with MS who had received 2 ocrelizumab (300 mg) cycles at 2-week intervals. Of 210 patients, 55 had primary progressive MS and 155 had RRMS or aSPMS.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the German Research Council. The authors reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Nicholas J et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Apr 26. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000719.

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

In the past 5 years, there has been a significant drop in the use of prescription opioids and in deaths associated with such use; but at the same time there’s been a dramatic increase in fatalities involving illicit opioids and stimulants, a new report from the American Medical Association (AMA) Opioid Task Force shows.

Although the medical community has made some important progress against the opioid epidemic, with a 37% reduction in opioid prescribing since 2013, illicit drugs are now the dominant reason why drug overdoses kill more than 70,000 people each year, the report says.

In an effort to improve the situation, the AMA Opioid Task Force is urging the removal of barriers to evidence-based care for patients who have pain and for those who have substance use disorders (SUDs). The report notes that “red tape and misguided policies are grave dangers” to these patients.

“It is critically important as we see drug overdoses increasing that we work towards reducing barriers of care for substance use abusers,” Task Force Chair Patrice A. Harris, MD, said in an interview.

“At present, the status quo is killing far too many of our loved ones and wreaking havoc in our communities,” she said.

Dr. Harris noted that “a more coordinated/integrated approach” is needed to help individuals with SUDs.

“It is vitally important that these individuals can get access to treatment. Everyone deserves the opportunity for care,” she added.

Dramatic increases

The report cites figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that indicate the following regarding the period from the beginning of 2015 to the end of 2019:

• Deaths involving illicitly manufactured  and fentanyl analogues increased from 5,766 to 36,509.
• Deaths involving stimulants such as  increased from 4,402 to 16,279.
• Deaths involving cocaine increased from 5,496 to 15,974.
• Deaths involving heroin increased from 10,788 to 14,079.
• Deaths involving prescription opioids decreased from 12,269 to 11,904.

The report notes that deaths involving prescription opioids peaked in July 2017 at 15,003.

Some good news

In addition to the 37% reduction in opioid prescribing in recent years, the AMA lists other points of progress, such as a large increase in prescription drug monitoring program registrations. More than 1.8 million physicians and other healthcare professionals now participate in these programs.

Also, more physicians are now certified to treat opioid use disorder. More than 85,000 physicians, as well as a growing number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, are now certified to treat patients in the office with buprenorphine. This represents an increase of more than 50,000 from 2017.

Access to naloxone is also increasing. More than 1 million naloxone prescriptions were dispensed in 2019 – nearly double the amount in 2018. This represents a 649% increase from 2017.

“We have made some good progress, but we can’t declare victory, and there are far too many barriers to getting treatment for substance use disorder,” Dr. Harris said.

“Policymakers, public health officials, and insurance companies need to come together to create a system where there are no barriers to care for people with substance use disorder and for those needing pain medications,” she added.

At present, prior authorization is often needed before these patients can receive medication. “This involves quite a bit of administration, filling in forms, making phone calls, and this is stopping people getting the care they need,” said Dr. Harris.

“This is a highly regulated environment. There are also regulations on the amount of methadone that can be prescribed and for the prescription of buprenorphine, which has to be initiated in person,” she said.

Will COVID-19 bring change?

Dr. Harris noted that some of these regulations have been relaxed during the COVID-19 crisis so that physicians could ensure that patients have continued access to medication, and she suggested that this may pave the way for the future.

“We need now to look at this carefully and have a conversation about whether these relaxations can be continued. But this would have to be evidence based. Perhaps we can use experience from the COVID-19 period to guide future policy on this,” she said.

The report highlights that despite medical society and patient advocacy, only 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that limit public and private insurers from imposing prior authorization requirements on SUD services or medications.

The Task Force urges removal of remaining prior authorizations, step therapy, and other inappropriate administrative burdens that delay or deny care for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications used as part of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.

The organization is also calling for better implementation of mental health and substance use disorder parity laws that require health insurers to provide the same level of benefits for mental health and SUD treatment and services that they do for medical/surgical care.

At present, only a few states have taken meaningful action to enact or enforce those laws, the report notes.

The Task Force also recommends the implementation of systems to track overdose and mortality trends to provide equitable public health interventions. These measures would include comprehensive, disaggregated racial and ethnic data collection related to testing, hospitalization, and mortality associated with opioids and other substances.

“We know that ending the drug overdose epidemic will not be easy, but if policymakers allow the status quo to continue, it will be impossible,” Dr. Harris said.

“This is particularly important given concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic is worsening the drug overdose epidemic. Physicians will continue to do our part. We urge policymakers to do theirs,” she added.
 

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

In the past 5 years, there has been a significant drop in the use of prescription opioids and in deaths associated with such use; but at the same time there’s been a dramatic increase in fatalities involving illicit opioids and stimulants, a new report from the American Medical Association (AMA) Opioid Task Force shows.

Although the medical community has made some important progress against the opioid epidemic, with a 37% reduction in opioid prescribing since 2013, illicit drugs are now the dominant reason why drug overdoses kill more than 70,000 people each year, the report says.

In an effort to improve the situation, the AMA Opioid Task Force is urging the removal of barriers to evidence-based care for patients who have pain and for those who have substance use disorders (SUDs). The report notes that “red tape and misguided policies are grave dangers” to these patients.

“It is critically important as we see drug overdoses increasing that we work towards reducing barriers of care for substance use abusers,” Task Force Chair Patrice A. Harris, MD, said in an interview.

“At present, the status quo is killing far too many of our loved ones and wreaking havoc in our communities,” she said.

Dr. Harris noted that “a more coordinated/integrated approach” is needed to help individuals with SUDs.

“It is vitally important that these individuals can get access to treatment. Everyone deserves the opportunity for care,” she added.

Dramatic increases

The report cites figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that indicate the following regarding the period from the beginning of 2015 to the end of 2019:

• Deaths involving illicitly manufactured  and fentanyl analogues increased from 5,766 to 36,509.
• Deaths involving stimulants such as  increased from 4,402 to 16,279.
• Deaths involving cocaine increased from 5,496 to 15,974.
• Deaths involving heroin increased from 10,788 to 14,079.
• Deaths involving prescription opioids decreased from 12,269 to 11,904.

The report notes that deaths involving prescription opioids peaked in July 2017 at 15,003.

Some good news

In addition to the 37% reduction in opioid prescribing in recent years, the AMA lists other points of progress, such as a large increase in prescription drug monitoring program registrations. More than 1.8 million physicians and other healthcare professionals now participate in these programs.

Also, more physicians are now certified to treat opioid use disorder. More than 85,000 physicians, as well as a growing number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, are now certified to treat patients in the office with buprenorphine. This represents an increase of more than 50,000 from 2017.

Access to naloxone is also increasing. More than 1 million naloxone prescriptions were dispensed in 2019 – nearly double the amount in 2018. This represents a 649% increase from 2017.

“We have made some good progress, but we can’t declare victory, and there are far too many barriers to getting treatment for substance use disorder,” Dr. Harris said.

“Policymakers, public health officials, and insurance companies need to come together to create a system where there are no barriers to care for people with substance use disorder and for those needing pain medications,” she added.

At present, prior authorization is often needed before these patients can receive medication. “This involves quite a bit of administration, filling in forms, making phone calls, and this is stopping people getting the care they need,” said Dr. Harris.

“This is a highly regulated environment. There are also regulations on the amount of methadone that can be prescribed and for the prescription of buprenorphine, which has to be initiated in person,” she said.

Will COVID-19 bring change?

Dr. Harris noted that some of these regulations have been relaxed during the COVID-19 crisis so that physicians could ensure that patients have continued access to medication, and she suggested that this may pave the way for the future.

“We need now to look at this carefully and have a conversation about whether these relaxations can be continued. But this would have to be evidence based. Perhaps we can use experience from the COVID-19 period to guide future policy on this,” she said.

The report highlights that despite medical society and patient advocacy, only 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that limit public and private insurers from imposing prior authorization requirements on SUD services or medications.

The Task Force urges removal of remaining prior authorizations, step therapy, and other inappropriate administrative burdens that delay or deny care for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications used as part of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.

The organization is also calling for better implementation of mental health and substance use disorder parity laws that require health insurers to provide the same level of benefits for mental health and SUD treatment and services that they do for medical/surgical care.

At present, only a few states have taken meaningful action to enact or enforce those laws, the report notes.

The Task Force also recommends the implementation of systems to track overdose and mortality trends to provide equitable public health interventions. These measures would include comprehensive, disaggregated racial and ethnic data collection related to testing, hospitalization, and mortality associated with opioids and other substances.

“We know that ending the drug overdose epidemic will not be easy, but if policymakers allow the status quo to continue, it will be impossible,” Dr. Harris said.

“This is particularly important given concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic is worsening the drug overdose epidemic. Physicians will continue to do our part. We urge policymakers to do theirs,” she added.
 

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

In the past 5 years, there has been a significant drop in the use of prescription opioids and in deaths associated with such use; but at the same time there’s been a dramatic increase in fatalities involving illicit opioids and stimulants, a new report from the American Medical Association (AMA) Opioid Task Force shows.

Although the medical community has made some important progress against the opioid epidemic, with a 37% reduction in opioid prescribing since 2013, illicit drugs are now the dominant reason why drug overdoses kill more than 70,000 people each year, the report says.

In an effort to improve the situation, the AMA Opioid Task Force is urging the removal of barriers to evidence-based care for patients who have pain and for those who have substance use disorders (SUDs). The report notes that “red tape and misguided policies are grave dangers” to these patients.

“It is critically important as we see drug overdoses increasing that we work towards reducing barriers of care for substance use abusers,” Task Force Chair Patrice A. Harris, MD, said in an interview.

“At present, the status quo is killing far too many of our loved ones and wreaking havoc in our communities,” she said.

Dr. Harris noted that “a more coordinated/integrated approach” is needed to help individuals with SUDs.

“It is vitally important that these individuals can get access to treatment. Everyone deserves the opportunity for care,” she added.

Dramatic increases

The report cites figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that indicate the following regarding the period from the beginning of 2015 to the end of 2019:

• Deaths involving illicitly manufactured  and fentanyl analogues increased from 5,766 to 36,509.
• Deaths involving stimulants such as  increased from 4,402 to 16,279.
• Deaths involving cocaine increased from 5,496 to 15,974.
• Deaths involving heroin increased from 10,788 to 14,079.
• Deaths involving prescription opioids decreased from 12,269 to 11,904.

The report notes that deaths involving prescription opioids peaked in July 2017 at 15,003.

Some good news

In addition to the 37% reduction in opioid prescribing in recent years, the AMA lists other points of progress, such as a large increase in prescription drug monitoring program registrations. More than 1.8 million physicians and other healthcare professionals now participate in these programs.

Also, more physicians are now certified to treat opioid use disorder. More than 85,000 physicians, as well as a growing number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, are now certified to treat patients in the office with buprenorphine. This represents an increase of more than 50,000 from 2017.

Access to naloxone is also increasing. More than 1 million naloxone prescriptions were dispensed in 2019 – nearly double the amount in 2018. This represents a 649% increase from 2017.

“We have made some good progress, but we can’t declare victory, and there are far too many barriers to getting treatment for substance use disorder,” Dr. Harris said.

“Policymakers, public health officials, and insurance companies need to come together to create a system where there are no barriers to care for people with substance use disorder and for those needing pain medications,” she added.

At present, prior authorization is often needed before these patients can receive medication. “This involves quite a bit of administration, filling in forms, making phone calls, and this is stopping people getting the care they need,” said Dr. Harris.

“This is a highly regulated environment. There are also regulations on the amount of methadone that can be prescribed and for the prescription of buprenorphine, which has to be initiated in person,” she said.

Will COVID-19 bring change?

Dr. Harris noted that some of these regulations have been relaxed during the COVID-19 crisis so that physicians could ensure that patients have continued access to medication, and she suggested that this may pave the way for the future.

“We need now to look at this carefully and have a conversation about whether these relaxations can be continued. But this would have to be evidence based. Perhaps we can use experience from the COVID-19 period to guide future policy on this,” she said.

The report highlights that despite medical society and patient advocacy, only 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that limit public and private insurers from imposing prior authorization requirements on SUD services or medications.

The Task Force urges removal of remaining prior authorizations, step therapy, and other inappropriate administrative burdens that delay or deny care for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications used as part of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.

The organization is also calling for better implementation of mental health and substance use disorder parity laws that require health insurers to provide the same level of benefits for mental health and SUD treatment and services that they do for medical/surgical care.

At present, only a few states have taken meaningful action to enact or enforce those laws, the report notes.

The Task Force also recommends the implementation of systems to track overdose and mortality trends to provide equitable public health interventions. These measures would include comprehensive, disaggregated racial and ethnic data collection related to testing, hospitalization, and mortality associated with opioids and other substances.

“We know that ending the drug overdose epidemic will not be easy, but if policymakers allow the status quo to continue, it will be impossible,” Dr. Harris said.

“This is particularly important given concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic is worsening the drug overdose epidemic. Physicians will continue to do our part. We urge policymakers to do theirs,” she added.
 

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

MRIs are amazing. It’s hard to imagine practicing neurology without them.

In dementia workups, or even with more benign forms of cognitive impairment, a cranial imaging study is always needed. Like most neurologists I prefer MRIs, although I am willing to settle for a head CT when I have to.

These studies aren’t cheap, but as part of the workup, to exclude other causes, they are invaluable.

Generally one is all that is needed, although there are exceptions. But some patients and families seem to think MRIs need to be repeated often, anywhere from annually to every few months, “to make sure nothing has changed.”

You usually can’t talk them out of it either. There must be “some reason” why the patient keeps getting worse. Explaining that it’s a degenerative process that doesn’t show up on MRI gets me nowhere. They read something on the Internet about it, or heard a story about the uncle of a friend of a friend, or they focus on an incidental finding that must be the cause (like an 8-mm meningioma).

Generally I stand my ground. Obviously, there are times another imaging study is warranted, such as for a dramatic, acute neurological change, but in most cases all we’re really seeing is the sad progression of disease.

I’m not unsympathetic to these people. I feel bad that this has happened to them and that they’ve been given incorrect information. I take as much time as needed to explain the disease and why another study is not needed. It’s easy to write an order for the study to appease them, but it only leads to repeating it again in a few months. Every MRI I order costs time and money, and could take the same test away from a person who truly needs it.

Sometimes the patient and family will understand after we discuss it and the request is forgotten. Other times they leave my office upset, post a bad Yelp review about me refusing to treat their ailing parent, and change neurologists. Occasionally they’re able to get their internist to give in and order a repeat MRI, and when the repeat study hasn’t changed they call me wanting to know when the next one should be done.

Throwing more money at a problem, especially when you already know what the answer will be, is never a good idea. Not now, not ever ... in medicine or anything else.

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

MRIs are amazing. It’s hard to imagine practicing neurology without them.

In dementia workups, or even with more benign forms of cognitive impairment, a cranial imaging study is always needed. Like most neurologists I prefer MRIs, although I am willing to settle for a head CT when I have to.

These studies aren’t cheap, but as part of the workup, to exclude other causes, they are invaluable.

Generally one is all that is needed, although there are exceptions. But some patients and families seem to think MRIs need to be repeated often, anywhere from annually to every few months, “to make sure nothing has changed.”

You usually can’t talk them out of it either. There must be “some reason” why the patient keeps getting worse. Explaining that it’s a degenerative process that doesn’t show up on MRI gets me nowhere. They read something on the Internet about it, or heard a story about the uncle of a friend of a friend, or they focus on an incidental finding that must be the cause (like an 8-mm meningioma).

Generally I stand my ground. Obviously, there are times another imaging study is warranted, such as for a dramatic, acute neurological change, but in most cases all we’re really seeing is the sad progression of disease.

I’m not unsympathetic to these people. I feel bad that this has happened to them and that they’ve been given incorrect information. I take as much time as needed to explain the disease and why another study is not needed. It’s easy to write an order for the study to appease them, but it only leads to repeating it again in a few months. Every MRI I order costs time and money, and could take the same test away from a person who truly needs it.

Sometimes the patient and family will understand after we discuss it and the request is forgotten. Other times they leave my office upset, post a bad Yelp review about me refusing to treat their ailing parent, and change neurologists. Occasionally they’re able to get their internist to give in and order a repeat MRI, and when the repeat study hasn’t changed they call me wanting to know when the next one should be done.

Throwing more money at a problem, especially when you already know what the answer will be, is never a good idea. Not now, not ever ... in medicine or anything else.

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

MRIs are amazing. It’s hard to imagine practicing neurology without them.

In dementia workups, or even with more benign forms of cognitive impairment, a cranial imaging study is always needed. Like most neurologists I prefer MRIs, although I am willing to settle for a head CT when I have to.

These studies aren’t cheap, but as part of the workup, to exclude other causes, they are invaluable.

Generally one is all that is needed, although there are exceptions. But some patients and families seem to think MRIs need to be repeated often, anywhere from annually to every few months, “to make sure nothing has changed.”

You usually can’t talk them out of it either. There must be “some reason” why the patient keeps getting worse. Explaining that it’s a degenerative process that doesn’t show up on MRI gets me nowhere. They read something on the Internet about it, or heard a story about the uncle of a friend of a friend, or they focus on an incidental finding that must be the cause (like an 8-mm meningioma).

Generally I stand my ground. Obviously, there are times another imaging study is warranted, such as for a dramatic, acute neurological change, but in most cases all we’re really seeing is the sad progression of disease.

I’m not unsympathetic to these people. I feel bad that this has happened to them and that they’ve been given incorrect information. I take as much time as needed to explain the disease and why another study is not needed. It’s easy to write an order for the study to appease them, but it only leads to repeating it again in a few months. Every MRI I order costs time and money, and could take the same test away from a person who truly needs it.

Sometimes the patient and family will understand after we discuss it and the request is forgotten. Other times they leave my office upset, post a bad Yelp review about me refusing to treat their ailing parent, and change neurologists. Occasionally they’re able to get their internist to give in and order a repeat MRI, and when the repeat study hasn’t changed they call me wanting to know when the next one should be done.

Throwing more money at a problem, especially when you already know what the answer will be, is never a good idea. Not now, not ever ... in medicine or anything else.

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