Neurology, once considered a “diagnose and adios” specialty, is gaining newfound, scientific respect. Our vastly improved understanding of neurologic pathophysiology has led to many Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that can specifically enhance treatment outcomes. Medications for migraine, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and other chronic neurological diseases have been extended and modernized; for millions of patients, these medicines fulfill their long-awaited needs.

What would Dr Osler have said if he witnessed today’s definition of the practice of medicine? As singular as our patients and their disorders are, the delivery of care is anything but. The processes in the delivery of this care have created many unforeseen twists and turns, thanks to the electronic health record (EHR), the resource-based relative value scale (RBRVS), evaluation and management (E&M) coding, and private health insurance (PHI).

From a neurologist’s perspective, I will elaborate upon these changes that have affected our day-to-day neurology practices. I have practiced general neurology and headache medicine both in private and academic practices, evaluating and treating thousands of inpatients and outpatients in urban and rural healthcare facilities since 1986.

The EHR

Despite herculean, lofty, and sustained efforts by the medical business world to promote EHR adoption worldwide, goals remain unmet. Intended to improve the quality of care and patient outcomes, reduce medical errors, and crystalize communications among providers and with patients, it is instead associated with physician burnout (B), lack of usability (U) and interoperability (I), has likability (L) issues, and provides no productive physician direction (D) – there is an enormous need to BUILD it better.

In my own practice, it is inevitable that I will use my EHR laptop with an unknowing patient. If so, I try to make her feel comfortable in its presence as I strive to stay intent on our discussion. Yet I invariably split my concentration between machine and patient. The machine often gets my full attention, with its confusing and unnecessary medical record notes, tech glitches and screen interruptions, let alone its complicated web of tabs, buttons, links, and obscure prompts. As for fulfilling CMS’ meaningful use criteria to reap financial benefits, I long ago abandoned that effort if earning benefits and reaching the desired patient outcome weren’t on the same path.

We are required to read numerous EHR windows, deal with misused, template-based medical records and the usually faulty copy-and-paste function, which results in flagrant errors. A common example is templating or copy-and-pasting normal examination findings such as “pupils equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation (PERRLA),” without making modifications for a patient who has obvious abnormal pupillary findings.  It is the EHR that often induces these types of documentation errors.

The EHR, as it exists now, intrudes into our time with patients. But for the past 30 years, the RBRVs have defined how we are compensated for our services. This compensation scale was created to provide a standard system of paying physicians’ services based on resource costs associated with patient care. The resource components are physician work, practice expense, and professional liability insurance. These components make our compensation based on effort rather than effect.

Payments are calculated into relative value units (RVUs), which are often structured into physician employment contracts.¹ There are many RVU calculations and formulas that determine physician reimbursement and compensation; these are not entirely straightforward and too often lack transparency. Despite Dr Osler’s plea in Aequanimitas for physicians to maintain imperturbability and equanimity, that plea goes to the wayside when debating the value of the RBRVS. This system dilutes the complexities of the physician visit, especially for patients with comorbidities, polypharmacy, and cognitive and social concerns.²

Another frustrating, time-absorbing business requirement is E&M coding; the codes came about around the same time as RBRVs. Congress established E&M in the mid-1990s to facilitate medical billing by translating physician-patient encounters into 5-digit codes. In a neurology office, this authentication takes considerable effort, detracts from the patient’s visit, and adds to the documentation requirement to receive insured patient payments.

Years ago, I reviewed neurology insurance claims for a global health service company. I remember the considerable discussion over subjective documentation technicalities, attempting to justify the submitted E&M code. The onerous administrative burden E&M has created continues to evolve, with no end in sight.

Private insurance

When was the last time that you did not have to submit a prior authorization (PA) request to a payer in a week’s worth of days?

PA requests impede timely, efficient, and much-needed vital care while usurping a physician’s decision-making process. In 2020, the American Medical Association released the responses of 1000 physicians who were asked about making PA requests.³ Physicians said that the time delays affected their patients’ health and created adverse events, including hospitalizations. PAs are not only requested for new drugs; physicians report that the increase in the volume of PAs includes requests for existing drugs and services.

It takes staff days to make the requests; most medical practices interact with dozens of different health plans, all with different requirements related to PAs. Insurers often follow the lead of Medicare, and Medicare does not cover most self-injectable medications.⁴

I can report the same experiences. Ten years ago, private insurers rejected ~20% of my practice’s PA requests. Today, more than half of my patients need a PA from their insurer—often for 2 or 3 prescriptions each—and at least half of the requests are rejected. And, unlike 10 years ago, most of my requests are still denied after an appeal.

My patients are mostly migraine patients. When appropriate, I discuss with them the new acute and preventive anti–calcitonin gene-related peptides (anti-CGRPs), which, for the chronic migraine patient, can be a small slice of heaven. Reality strikes, however, when we discuss the likely PA process. This shift no longer focuses on getting likely migraine relief, but instead on the insurance company or companies approving the PA.

Sometimes the PA approval process is only accomplished by patients fighting the PA battle for themselves. One patient recently had to convince her PA oversight insurance representative that, if her PA was denied, her suicide would follow.

And what do patients do if the PA has been denied? Sometimes I must treat a patient with something else, which is often less appropriate for that patient. I have had many patients who have given up during the process.

Industry sees PAs in a different light. A survey⁵ of 44 payers conducted in 2019 found that PAs save money, improve evidence-based care, and so on. Physicians asking for the PAs were singled out as the reasons PAs were denied, as these physicians did not follow proper protocols.

Despite government and PHI policies that are supposed to enhance healthcare delivery and stabilize costs, US healthcare costs stand at $3.6 trillion.^6,7 These medical practice transitions have increased administrative burden, accounting for 34% of US total healthcare expenditures vs 17% in Canada.^8,9

In neurology, successful outcomes are predicated on recognizing the singularity of each patient. The current health system’s need for homogenization is making such recognition difficult. I invite you to read my commentary entitled The Practice of Medicine - Hazy or Invisible Lines, which discusses the unintended consequences of these well-intentioned medical practice adjustments. 

Comments from Alan Rapoport, MD

Editor in Chief, Neurology Reviews

Professor Landy’s article excellently details just some of the roadblocks all neurologists face in providing patient-centric care. Prescribing medication or devices alone does not provide such care, but that is what many doctors must do because of limited time with the patient. Dr Osler was correct; we have to treat the patient who has the disease, not the disease the patient has. Taking an adequate history, conducting a full neurologic examination, documenting both, reviewing outside records, discussing the diagnosis and plan with the patient, ordering appropriate testing, and dictating all of the above in 20 or 30 minutes is impossible to do well. Going forward, we can expect computers and some form of artificial intelligence will help us to be more efficient, but we must keep the patient in the center. No wonder patients are not as happy with the healthcare system and their doctors as they used to be.

Alan Rapoport, MD

Clinical Professor of Neurology

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California

Past President

The International Headache Society (IHS)

Neurology, once considered a “diagnose and adios” specialty, is gaining newfound, scientific respect. Our vastly improved understanding of neurologic pathophysiology has led to many Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that can specifically enhance treatment outcomes. Medications for migraine, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and other chronic neurological diseases have been extended and modernized; for millions of patients, these medicines fulfill their long-awaited needs.

What would Dr Osler have said if he witnessed today’s definition of the practice of medicine? As singular as our patients and their disorders are, the delivery of care is anything but. The processes in the delivery of this care have created many unforeseen twists and turns, thanks to the electronic health record (EHR), the resource-based relative value scale (RBRVS), evaluation and management (E&M) coding, and private health insurance (PHI).

From a neurologist’s perspective, I will elaborate upon these changes that have affected our day-to-day neurology practices. I have practiced general neurology and headache medicine both in private and academic practices, evaluating and treating thousands of inpatients and outpatients in urban and rural healthcare facilities since 1986.

The EHR

Despite herculean, lofty, and sustained efforts by the medical business world to promote EHR adoption worldwide, goals remain unmet. Intended to improve the quality of care and patient outcomes, reduce medical errors, and crystalize communications among providers and with patients, it is instead associated with physician burnout (B), lack of usability (U) and interoperability (I), has likability (L) issues, and provides no productive physician direction (D) – there is an enormous need to BUILD it better.

In my own practice, it is inevitable that I will use my EHR laptop with an unknowing patient. If so, I try to make her feel comfortable in its presence as I strive to stay intent on our discussion. Yet I invariably split my concentration between machine and patient. The machine often gets my full attention, with its confusing and unnecessary medical record notes, tech glitches and screen interruptions, let alone its complicated web of tabs, buttons, links, and obscure prompts. As for fulfilling CMS’ meaningful use criteria to reap financial benefits, I long ago abandoned that effort if earning benefits and reaching the desired patient outcome weren’t on the same path.

We are required to read numerous EHR windows, deal with misused, template-based medical records and the usually faulty copy-and-paste function, which results in flagrant errors. A common example is templating or copy-and-pasting normal examination findings such as “pupils equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation (PERRLA),” without making modifications for a patient who has obvious abnormal pupillary findings.  It is the EHR that often induces these types of documentation errors.

The EHR, as it exists now, intrudes into our time with patients. But for the past 30 years, the RBRVs have defined how we are compensated for our services. This compensation scale was created to provide a standard system of paying physicians’ services based on resource costs associated with patient care. The resource components are physician work, practice expense, and professional liability insurance. These components make our compensation based on effort rather than effect.

Payments are calculated into relative value units (RVUs), which are often structured into physician employment contracts.¹ There are many RVU calculations and formulas that determine physician reimbursement and compensation; these are not entirely straightforward and too often lack transparency. Despite Dr Osler’s plea in Aequanimitas for physicians to maintain imperturbability and equanimity, that plea goes to the wayside when debating the value of the RBRVS. This system dilutes the complexities of the physician visit, especially for patients with comorbidities, polypharmacy, and cognitive and social concerns.²

Another frustrating, time-absorbing business requirement is E&M coding; the codes came about around the same time as RBRVs. Congress established E&M in the mid-1990s to facilitate medical billing by translating physician-patient encounters into 5-digit codes. In a neurology office, this authentication takes considerable effort, detracts from the patient’s visit, and adds to the documentation requirement to receive insured patient payments.

Years ago, I reviewed neurology insurance claims for a global health service company. I remember the considerable discussion over subjective documentation technicalities, attempting to justify the submitted E&M code. The onerous administrative burden E&M has created continues to evolve, with no end in sight.

Private insurance

When was the last time that you did not have to submit a prior authorization (PA) request to a payer in a week’s worth of days?

PA requests impede timely, efficient, and much-needed vital care while usurping a physician’s decision-making process. In 2020, the American Medical Association released the responses of 1000 physicians who were asked about making PA requests.³ Physicians said that the time delays affected their patients’ health and created adverse events, including hospitalizations. PAs are not only requested for new drugs; physicians report that the increase in the volume of PAs includes requests for existing drugs and services.

It takes staff days to make the requests; most medical practices interact with dozens of different health plans, all with different requirements related to PAs. Insurers often follow the lead of Medicare, and Medicare does not cover most self-injectable medications.⁴

I can report the same experiences. Ten years ago, private insurers rejected ~20% of my practice’s PA requests. Today, more than half of my patients need a PA from their insurer—often for 2 or 3 prescriptions each—and at least half of the requests are rejected. And, unlike 10 years ago, most of my requests are still denied after an appeal.

My patients are mostly migraine patients. When appropriate, I discuss with them the new acute and preventive anti–calcitonin gene-related peptides (anti-CGRPs), which, for the chronic migraine patient, can be a small slice of heaven. Reality strikes, however, when we discuss the likely PA process. This shift no longer focuses on getting likely migraine relief, but instead on the insurance company or companies approving the PA.

Sometimes the PA approval process is only accomplished by patients fighting the PA battle for themselves. One patient recently had to convince her PA oversight insurance representative that, if her PA was denied, her suicide would follow.

And what do patients do if the PA has been denied? Sometimes I must treat a patient with something else, which is often less appropriate for that patient. I have had many patients who have given up during the process.

Industry sees PAs in a different light. A survey⁵ of 44 payers conducted in 2019 found that PAs save money, improve evidence-based care, and so on. Physicians asking for the PAs were singled out as the reasons PAs were denied, as these physicians did not follow proper protocols.

Despite government and PHI policies that are supposed to enhance healthcare delivery and stabilize costs, US healthcare costs stand at $3.6 trillion.^6,7 These medical practice transitions have increased administrative burden, accounting for 34% of US total healthcare expenditures vs 17% in Canada.^8,9

In neurology, successful outcomes are predicated on recognizing the singularity of each patient. The current health system’s need for homogenization is making such recognition difficult. I invite you to read my commentary entitled The Practice of Medicine - Hazy or Invisible Lines, which discusses the unintended consequences of these well-intentioned medical practice adjustments. 

Comments from Alan Rapoport, MD

Editor in Chief, Neurology Reviews

Professor Landy’s article excellently details just some of the roadblocks all neurologists face in providing patient-centric care. Prescribing medication or devices alone does not provide such care, but that is what many doctors must do because of limited time with the patient. Dr Osler was correct; we have to treat the patient who has the disease, not the disease the patient has. Taking an adequate history, conducting a full neurologic examination, documenting both, reviewing outside records, discussing the diagnosis and plan with the patient, ordering appropriate testing, and dictating all of the above in 20 or 30 minutes is impossible to do well. Going forward, we can expect computers and some form of artificial intelligence will help us to be more efficient, but we must keep the patient in the center. No wonder patients are not as happy with the healthcare system and their doctors as they used to be.

Alan Rapoport, MD

Clinical Professor of Neurology

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California

Past President

The International Headache Society (IHS)

Neurology, once considered a “diagnose and adios” specialty, is gaining newfound, scientific respect. Our vastly improved understanding of neurologic pathophysiology has led to many Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that can specifically enhance treatment outcomes. Medications for migraine, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and other chronic neurological diseases have been extended and modernized; for millions of patients, these medicines fulfill their long-awaited needs.

What would Dr Osler have said if he witnessed today’s definition of the practice of medicine? As singular as our patients and their disorders are, the delivery of care is anything but. The processes in the delivery of this care have created many unforeseen twists and turns, thanks to the electronic health record (EHR), the resource-based relative value scale (RBRVS), evaluation and management (E&M) coding, and private health insurance (PHI).

From a neurologist’s perspective, I will elaborate upon these changes that have affected our day-to-day neurology practices. I have practiced general neurology and headache medicine both in private and academic practices, evaluating and treating thousands of inpatients and outpatients in urban and rural healthcare facilities since 1986.

The EHR

Despite herculean, lofty, and sustained efforts by the medical business world to promote EHR adoption worldwide, goals remain unmet. Intended to improve the quality of care and patient outcomes, reduce medical errors, and crystalize communications among providers and with patients, it is instead associated with physician burnout (B), lack of usability (U) and interoperability (I), has likability (L) issues, and provides no productive physician direction (D) – there is an enormous need to BUILD it better.

In my own practice, it is inevitable that I will use my EHR laptop with an unknowing patient. If so, I try to make her feel comfortable in its presence as I strive to stay intent on our discussion. Yet I invariably split my concentration between machine and patient. The machine often gets my full attention, with its confusing and unnecessary medical record notes, tech glitches and screen interruptions, let alone its complicated web of tabs, buttons, links, and obscure prompts. As for fulfilling CMS’ meaningful use criteria to reap financial benefits, I long ago abandoned that effort if earning benefits and reaching the desired patient outcome weren’t on the same path.

We are required to read numerous EHR windows, deal with misused, template-based medical records and the usually faulty copy-and-paste function, which results in flagrant errors. A common example is templating or copy-and-pasting normal examination findings such as “pupils equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation (PERRLA),” without making modifications for a patient who has obvious abnormal pupillary findings.  It is the EHR that often induces these types of documentation errors.

The EHR, as it exists now, intrudes into our time with patients. But for the past 30 years, the RBRVs have defined how we are compensated for our services. This compensation scale was created to provide a standard system of paying physicians’ services based on resource costs associated with patient care. The resource components are physician work, practice expense, and professional liability insurance. These components make our compensation based on effort rather than effect.

Payments are calculated into relative value units (RVUs), which are often structured into physician employment contracts.¹ There are many RVU calculations and formulas that determine physician reimbursement and compensation; these are not entirely straightforward and too often lack transparency. Despite Dr Osler’s plea in Aequanimitas for physicians to maintain imperturbability and equanimity, that plea goes to the wayside when debating the value of the RBRVS. This system dilutes the complexities of the physician visit, especially for patients with comorbidities, polypharmacy, and cognitive and social concerns.²

Another frustrating, time-absorbing business requirement is E&M coding; the codes came about around the same time as RBRVs. Congress established E&M in the mid-1990s to facilitate medical billing by translating physician-patient encounters into 5-digit codes. In a neurology office, this authentication takes considerable effort, detracts from the patient’s visit, and adds to the documentation requirement to receive insured patient payments.

Years ago, I reviewed neurology insurance claims for a global health service company. I remember the considerable discussion over subjective documentation technicalities, attempting to justify the submitted E&M code. The onerous administrative burden E&M has created continues to evolve, with no end in sight.

Private insurance

When was the last time that you did not have to submit a prior authorization (PA) request to a payer in a week’s worth of days?

PA requests impede timely, efficient, and much-needed vital care while usurping a physician’s decision-making process. In 2020, the American Medical Association released the responses of 1000 physicians who were asked about making PA requests.³ Physicians said that the time delays affected their patients’ health and created adverse events, including hospitalizations. PAs are not only requested for new drugs; physicians report that the increase in the volume of PAs includes requests for existing drugs and services.

It takes staff days to make the requests; most medical practices interact with dozens of different health plans, all with different requirements related to PAs. Insurers often follow the lead of Medicare, and Medicare does not cover most self-injectable medications.⁴

I can report the same experiences. Ten years ago, private insurers rejected ~20% of my practice’s PA requests. Today, more than half of my patients need a PA from their insurer—often for 2 or 3 prescriptions each—and at least half of the requests are rejected. And, unlike 10 years ago, most of my requests are still denied after an appeal.

My patients are mostly migraine patients. When appropriate, I discuss with them the new acute and preventive anti–calcitonin gene-related peptides (anti-CGRPs), which, for the chronic migraine patient, can be a small slice of heaven. Reality strikes, however, when we discuss the likely PA process. This shift no longer focuses on getting likely migraine relief, but instead on the insurance company or companies approving the PA.

Sometimes the PA approval process is only accomplished by patients fighting the PA battle for themselves. One patient recently had to convince her PA oversight insurance representative that, if her PA was denied, her suicide would follow.

And what do patients do if the PA has been denied? Sometimes I must treat a patient with something else, which is often less appropriate for that patient. I have had many patients who have given up during the process.

Industry sees PAs in a different light. A survey⁵ of 44 payers conducted in 2019 found that PAs save money, improve evidence-based care, and so on. Physicians asking for the PAs were singled out as the reasons PAs were denied, as these physicians did not follow proper protocols.

Despite government and PHI policies that are supposed to enhance healthcare delivery and stabilize costs, US healthcare costs stand at $3.6 trillion.^6,7 These medical practice transitions have increased administrative burden, accounting for 34% of US total healthcare expenditures vs 17% in Canada.^8,9

In neurology, successful outcomes are predicated on recognizing the singularity of each patient. The current health system’s need for homogenization is making such recognition difficult. I invite you to read my commentary entitled The Practice of Medicine - Hazy or Invisible Lines, which discusses the unintended consequences of these well-intentioned medical practice adjustments. 

Comments from Alan Rapoport, MD

Editor in Chief, Neurology Reviews

Professor Landy’s article excellently details just some of the roadblocks all neurologists face in providing patient-centric care. Prescribing medication or devices alone does not provide such care, but that is what many doctors must do because of limited time with the patient. Dr Osler was correct; we have to treat the patient who has the disease, not the disease the patient has. Taking an adequate history, conducting a full neurologic examination, documenting both, reviewing outside records, discussing the diagnosis and plan with the patient, ordering appropriate testing, and dictating all of the above in 20 or 30 minutes is impossible to do well. Going forward, we can expect computers and some form of artificial intelligence will help us to be more efficient, but we must keep the patient in the center. No wonder patients are not as happy with the healthcare system and their doctors as they used to be.

Alan Rapoport, MD

Clinical Professor of Neurology

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California

Past President

The International Headache Society (IHS)

Endoscopic submucosal dissection to remove large colorectal lesions was performed safely and successfully in an outpatient setting, based on data from more than 600 patients.

The widespread adoption of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been slow because of its relative complexity, compared with other procedures, wrote Viktor Tidehag, MD, of Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues. The technique, first developed in Japan, is usually an inpatient procedure in Asian countries, the researchers said. However, “We have previously published a study of 156 ESD patients discharged after 2-4 hours of observation post ESD, providing a proof of concept that uncomplicated colorectal ESD can be safely performed as an outpatient procedure,” they wrote.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

In a study published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed data from a larger group of 660 consecutive colorectal ESD procedures at a single center between April 2014 and November 2020. Of these, 48 were planned admission and 612 were scheduled as outpatient procedures. All patients had lesions greater than 20 mm; the median size of the lesions was 38 mm, but the median lesion size was significantly smaller for outpatients, compared with inpatients (37 mm vs. 55 mm). The lesions included 323 (48.9%) in the proximal colon, 102 (15.5%) in the distal colon, and 235 (35.6%) in the rectum. The median procedure duration was 70 minutes, but was significantly shorter for outpatients, compared with inpatients (65 minutes vs. 121 minutes). The mean age of patients in the outpatient and inpatient groups was 68.7 years vs. 70.6 years.

Overall, en bloc resection was achieved in 620 (93.9%) cases, 30 were completed as piecemeal resections, and 10 were aborted and referred for surgical resection. A total of 33 of the scheduled outpatient procedures turned into unplanned inpatient procedures.

As for intraoperative adverse events, no significant differences in perforation rate occurred between inpatients and outpatients. Overall, perforation occurred in 38 cases (5.8%); 35 of these were treated with clip and 21 also were treated with antibiotics. A total of three patients required emergency surgery following perforations.

Within 30 days of the procedures, 46 patients (7.0%) sought medical attention for possible procedure-related concerns, the researchers said. “No correlation was found between 30-day complications and lesion location, resection speed, age, or perioperative perforation,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective, nonrandomized design from a single center, with no controls, as well as the potential for selection bias of healthy patients selected for outpatient procedures, and lack of data on comorbidities, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of a large number of lesions in the proximal colon, they said.

Endoscopic treatment is associated with lower mortality and morbidity, as well as lower costs, compared with laparoscopic and open surgery, and ESD could have a significant effect on health economics if widely implemented, the researchers noted in their discussion. “Being able to perform ESD in an outpatient setting compared to an inpatient situation would further decrease treatment costs compared to resection surgery,” they said. However, “patients must be well informed about the anticipated postoperative course and potential complications that can arise,” particularly in relation to intraprocedural or delayed perforation, they concluded.

Data support adoption of ESD

The current study was informative and will provide more support for adoption of colorectal ESD in the West, said Salmaan Jawaid, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, in an interview.

“Health economics in Asian countries are strikingly different than in other countries and support routine postprocedural admissions for observation,” Dr. Jawaid said. “Colorectal ESD has been slow to gain momentum in the West due to a steep learning curve, long procedural times, and the potential for complications with resultant hospital admissions. These logistical elements and impact on health care economics in the West serve as tremendous deterrents [of] adoption of colorectal ESD,” he explained.

“The current study demonstrates colorectal ESD, in a European health care system, may be feasible and safe in an outpatient setting, thereby effectively utilizing health care resources,” said Dr. Jawaid. “If admission after colorectal ESD is not routinely needed, health care systems may be more willing to support ESD on a broader scale with a consequent increase in surgery-saving procedures,” he noted.

Dr. Jawaid said he was not surprised by the findings overall. “However, I did find it interesting the number of patients who were safely discharged the same day after suffering colonic perforations,” he noted. He suspects improved methods of defect closure would explain this, and could in turn increase the rate of adoption.

“In experienced hands, I believe similar results will be attainable in a U.S.-based health care system,” he added.

However, “Validated protocol-based clinical pathways are needed in the West before widespread outpatient colorectal ESD is implemented. In the United States, emphasis should be made on the development of long-term educational systems whose primary goal is to ensure proper skills are acquired for endoscopic dissection,” he emphasized. “If support from a U.S. health care system is desired on a larger scale, detailed cost-benefit analyses are needed comparing all modalities of colon polyp removal.” 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jawaid disclosed serving as a consultant for Lumendi and Conmed.

This article was updated March 15, 2022.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection to remove large colorectal lesions was performed safely and successfully in an outpatient setting, based on data from more than 600 patients.

The widespread adoption of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been slow because of its relative complexity, compared with other procedures, wrote Viktor Tidehag, MD, of Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues. The technique, first developed in Japan, is usually an inpatient procedure in Asian countries, the researchers said. However, “We have previously published a study of 156 ESD patients discharged after 2-4 hours of observation post ESD, providing a proof of concept that uncomplicated colorectal ESD can be safely performed as an outpatient procedure,” they wrote.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

In a study published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed data from a larger group of 660 consecutive colorectal ESD procedures at a single center between April 2014 and November 2020. Of these, 48 were planned admission and 612 were scheduled as outpatient procedures. All patients had lesions greater than 20 mm; the median size of the lesions was 38 mm, but the median lesion size was significantly smaller for outpatients, compared with inpatients (37 mm vs. 55 mm). The lesions included 323 (48.9%) in the proximal colon, 102 (15.5%) in the distal colon, and 235 (35.6%) in the rectum. The median procedure duration was 70 minutes, but was significantly shorter for outpatients, compared with inpatients (65 minutes vs. 121 minutes). The mean age of patients in the outpatient and inpatient groups was 68.7 years vs. 70.6 years.

Overall, en bloc resection was achieved in 620 (93.9%) cases, 30 were completed as piecemeal resections, and 10 were aborted and referred for surgical resection. A total of 33 of the scheduled outpatient procedures turned into unplanned inpatient procedures.

As for intraoperative adverse events, no significant differences in perforation rate occurred between inpatients and outpatients. Overall, perforation occurred in 38 cases (5.8%); 35 of these were treated with clip and 21 also were treated with antibiotics. A total of three patients required emergency surgery following perforations.

Within 30 days of the procedures, 46 patients (7.0%) sought medical attention for possible procedure-related concerns, the researchers said. “No correlation was found between 30-day complications and lesion location, resection speed, age, or perioperative perforation,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective, nonrandomized design from a single center, with no controls, as well as the potential for selection bias of healthy patients selected for outpatient procedures, and lack of data on comorbidities, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of a large number of lesions in the proximal colon, they said.

Endoscopic treatment is associated with lower mortality and morbidity, as well as lower costs, compared with laparoscopic and open surgery, and ESD could have a significant effect on health economics if widely implemented, the researchers noted in their discussion. “Being able to perform ESD in an outpatient setting compared to an inpatient situation would further decrease treatment costs compared to resection surgery,” they said. However, “patients must be well informed about the anticipated postoperative course and potential complications that can arise,” particularly in relation to intraprocedural or delayed perforation, they concluded.

Data support adoption of ESD

The current study was informative and will provide more support for adoption of colorectal ESD in the West, said Salmaan Jawaid, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, in an interview.

“Health economics in Asian countries are strikingly different than in other countries and support routine postprocedural admissions for observation,” Dr. Jawaid said. “Colorectal ESD has been slow to gain momentum in the West due to a steep learning curve, long procedural times, and the potential for complications with resultant hospital admissions. These logistical elements and impact on health care economics in the West serve as tremendous deterrents [of] adoption of colorectal ESD,” he explained.

“The current study demonstrates colorectal ESD, in a European health care system, may be feasible and safe in an outpatient setting, thereby effectively utilizing health care resources,” said Dr. Jawaid. “If admission after colorectal ESD is not routinely needed, health care systems may be more willing to support ESD on a broader scale with a consequent increase in surgery-saving procedures,” he noted.

Dr. Jawaid said he was not surprised by the findings overall. “However, I did find it interesting the number of patients who were safely discharged the same day after suffering colonic perforations,” he noted. He suspects improved methods of defect closure would explain this, and could in turn increase the rate of adoption.

“In experienced hands, I believe similar results will be attainable in a U.S.-based health care system,” he added.

However, “Validated protocol-based clinical pathways are needed in the West before widespread outpatient colorectal ESD is implemented. In the United States, emphasis should be made on the development of long-term educational systems whose primary goal is to ensure proper skills are acquired for endoscopic dissection,” he emphasized. “If support from a U.S. health care system is desired on a larger scale, detailed cost-benefit analyses are needed comparing all modalities of colon polyp removal.” 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jawaid disclosed serving as a consultant for Lumendi and Conmed.

This article was updated March 15, 2022.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection to remove large colorectal lesions was performed safely and successfully in an outpatient setting, based on data from more than 600 patients.

The widespread adoption of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been slow because of its relative complexity, compared with other procedures, wrote Viktor Tidehag, MD, of Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues. The technique, first developed in Japan, is usually an inpatient procedure in Asian countries, the researchers said. However, “We have previously published a study of 156 ESD patients discharged after 2-4 hours of observation post ESD, providing a proof of concept that uncomplicated colorectal ESD can be safely performed as an outpatient procedure,” they wrote.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

In a study published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed data from a larger group of 660 consecutive colorectal ESD procedures at a single center between April 2014 and November 2020. Of these, 48 were planned admission and 612 were scheduled as outpatient procedures. All patients had lesions greater than 20 mm; the median size of the lesions was 38 mm, but the median lesion size was significantly smaller for outpatients, compared with inpatients (37 mm vs. 55 mm). The lesions included 323 (48.9%) in the proximal colon, 102 (15.5%) in the distal colon, and 235 (35.6%) in the rectum. The median procedure duration was 70 minutes, but was significantly shorter for outpatients, compared with inpatients (65 minutes vs. 121 minutes). The mean age of patients in the outpatient and inpatient groups was 68.7 years vs. 70.6 years.

Overall, en bloc resection was achieved in 620 (93.9%) cases, 30 were completed as piecemeal resections, and 10 were aborted and referred for surgical resection. A total of 33 of the scheduled outpatient procedures turned into unplanned inpatient procedures.

As for intraoperative adverse events, no significant differences in perforation rate occurred between inpatients and outpatients. Overall, perforation occurred in 38 cases (5.8%); 35 of these were treated with clip and 21 also were treated with antibiotics. A total of three patients required emergency surgery following perforations.

Within 30 days of the procedures, 46 patients (7.0%) sought medical attention for possible procedure-related concerns, the researchers said. “No correlation was found between 30-day complications and lesion location, resection speed, age, or perioperative perforation,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective, nonrandomized design from a single center, with no controls, as well as the potential for selection bias of healthy patients selected for outpatient procedures, and lack of data on comorbidities, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of a large number of lesions in the proximal colon, they said.

Endoscopic treatment is associated with lower mortality and morbidity, as well as lower costs, compared with laparoscopic and open surgery, and ESD could have a significant effect on health economics if widely implemented, the researchers noted in their discussion. “Being able to perform ESD in an outpatient setting compared to an inpatient situation would further decrease treatment costs compared to resection surgery,” they said. However, “patients must be well informed about the anticipated postoperative course and potential complications that can arise,” particularly in relation to intraprocedural or delayed perforation, they concluded.

Data support adoption of ESD

The current study was informative and will provide more support for adoption of colorectal ESD in the West, said Salmaan Jawaid, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, in an interview.

“Health economics in Asian countries are strikingly different than in other countries and support routine postprocedural admissions for observation,” Dr. Jawaid said. “Colorectal ESD has been slow to gain momentum in the West due to a steep learning curve, long procedural times, and the potential for complications with resultant hospital admissions. These logistical elements and impact on health care economics in the West serve as tremendous deterrents [of] adoption of colorectal ESD,” he explained.

“The current study demonstrates colorectal ESD, in a European health care system, may be feasible and safe in an outpatient setting, thereby effectively utilizing health care resources,” said Dr. Jawaid. “If admission after colorectal ESD is not routinely needed, health care systems may be more willing to support ESD on a broader scale with a consequent increase in surgery-saving procedures,” he noted.

Dr. Jawaid said he was not surprised by the findings overall. “However, I did find it interesting the number of patients who were safely discharged the same day after suffering colonic perforations,” he noted. He suspects improved methods of defect closure would explain this, and could in turn increase the rate of adoption.

“In experienced hands, I believe similar results will be attainable in a U.S.-based health care system,” he added.

However, “Validated protocol-based clinical pathways are needed in the West before widespread outpatient colorectal ESD is implemented. In the United States, emphasis should be made on the development of long-term educational systems whose primary goal is to ensure proper skills are acquired for endoscopic dissection,” he emphasized. “If support from a U.S. health care system is desired on a larger scale, detailed cost-benefit analyses are needed comparing all modalities of colon polyp removal.” 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jawaid disclosed serving as a consultant for Lumendi and Conmed.

This article was updated March 15, 2022.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective and long lasting in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Paul Wolfson, MBBS, from the Wellcome/EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) Centre for Interventional & Surgical Sciences, University College London also found that most treatment relapses happen early and can be re-treated successfully.

Findings were published in a final 10-year report from the United Kingdom National Halo Radiofrequency Ablation Registry and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Because RFA has been used in mainstream clinical practice only since 2005, long-term data of more than 5 years has been lacking.

Multiple studies have shown that RFA is effective in preventing esophageal cancer, but data have been lacking on how long RFA is effective in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE). A significant number of patients with dysplastic BE do not initially have visible lesions. For instance, the U.S. RFA Patient Registry reported an average 2.7-year follow up of 4,982 patients, but only 1,305 had dysplasia, the authors of the U.K. report note.

“It is well-established that endoscopic treatment of dysplastic BE is initially successful in up to 90% of patients,” the authors wrote. “What is less well understood is how long that benefit lasts and if this contributes to a substantial reduction in progression to cancer.”

Researchers prospectively gathered data from 2,535 patients from 28 U.K. specialist centers who underwent RFA therapy for BE (average length 5.2cm, range 1-20 cm). Among the group, 20% had low-grade dysplasia, 54% had high-grade dysplasia, and 26% had intramucosal carcinoma.

They looked at rates of invasive cancer and analyzed data for 1,175 patients to assess clearance rates of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) within 2 years of starting RFA, then looked at relapses and rates of return to CR-D and CR-IM after more therapy.

One year after RFA therapy, the Kaplan Meier (KM) rate of invasive cancer in the 2,535 patients was 0.5%. Ten years after starting treatment, the KM cancer rate was 4.1%, with a crude incidence rate of 0.52 per 100 patient-years. After 2 years of RFA, CR-D was 88% and CR-IM was 62.6%.

At 8 years, the KM relapse rates were 5.9% from CR-D and 18.7% from CR-IM. Most relapses happened in the first 2 years.

“Our study confirms durable reversal of dysplasia and BE with RFA, which reduces cancer risk by more than 90% compared to historical control data of 6-19% per annum,” the authors wrote.

Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma, there has been only small improvement in 5-year survival over the past 40 years, the authors note. Meanwhile, the incidence of continues to rise in the Western world.
 

Researchers look for minimally invasive solutions

Surgery removing the esophagus and lymph node clearance had been the standard for high-grade dysplasia, the authors wrote. It is still the intervention of choice for patients with locoregional disease, but it comes with high morbidity and mortality rates.

This has spurred researchers to look for a minimally invasive solution focused on organ preservation to treat early disease and avoid surgical side effects but also to deliver a cure, according to the authors.

Shria Kumar, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this publication, “Endoscopic ablation of dysplasia or intramucosal cancer is a mainstay of Barrett’s treatment.”

She noted the importance of the 10-year time period as the initial studies that established ablation evaluated outcomes within 1-3 years, and more recent data shows 5-year favorable outcomes.

Citing a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Kumar said, “The present study’s cohort developed cancer at rates similar to one of the earlier U.S.-based cohorts of Barrett’s patients, suggesting that we can draw some parallels.”

She pointed out notable characteristics in the U.K. cohort: “The majority of participants were male and Caucasian; 80% of had high-grade dysplasia or early cancer upon enrollment and long-segment Barrett’s.”

That difference is important when thinking about how this applies to a more diverse U.S. population, she said, or even patients who don’t have high-grade dysplasia or early cancer when they enroll.

“It’s also important to point out are that individuals with low-grade dysplasia were included in this U.K.-based study. There has been evidence that persons in Europe with low-grade dysplasia have higher rates of progression than persons in the U.S. with low-grade dysplasia.”

Dr. Kumar said this may be attributable to differences in the way pathologists practice in the two countries or in endoscopists’ treatment patterns. U.S. guidelines agree that ablation can be used in select persons with low-grade dysplasia, she said, but it’s an area that needs further study.

“Overall, though, this is a really important study of real-time data showing that ablation is impacting cancer rates in a positive way and that in select patients, we can really decrease the risk of invasive cancer by endoscopic eradication therapies,” Dr. Kumar said.

Two coauthors have received grants from Medtronic and Pentax Medical. The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kumar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective and long lasting in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Paul Wolfson, MBBS, from the Wellcome/EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) Centre for Interventional & Surgical Sciences, University College London also found that most treatment relapses happen early and can be re-treated successfully.

Findings were published in a final 10-year report from the United Kingdom National Halo Radiofrequency Ablation Registry and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Because RFA has been used in mainstream clinical practice only since 2005, long-term data of more than 5 years has been lacking.

Multiple studies have shown that RFA is effective in preventing esophageal cancer, but data have been lacking on how long RFA is effective in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE). A significant number of patients with dysplastic BE do not initially have visible lesions. For instance, the U.S. RFA Patient Registry reported an average 2.7-year follow up of 4,982 patients, but only 1,305 had dysplasia, the authors of the U.K. report note.

“It is well-established that endoscopic treatment of dysplastic BE is initially successful in up to 90% of patients,” the authors wrote. “What is less well understood is how long that benefit lasts and if this contributes to a substantial reduction in progression to cancer.”

Researchers prospectively gathered data from 2,535 patients from 28 U.K. specialist centers who underwent RFA therapy for BE (average length 5.2cm, range 1-20 cm). Among the group, 20% had low-grade dysplasia, 54% had high-grade dysplasia, and 26% had intramucosal carcinoma.

They looked at rates of invasive cancer and analyzed data for 1,175 patients to assess clearance rates of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) within 2 years of starting RFA, then looked at relapses and rates of return to CR-D and CR-IM after more therapy.

One year after RFA therapy, the Kaplan Meier (KM) rate of invasive cancer in the 2,535 patients was 0.5%. Ten years after starting treatment, the KM cancer rate was 4.1%, with a crude incidence rate of 0.52 per 100 patient-years. After 2 years of RFA, CR-D was 88% and CR-IM was 62.6%.

At 8 years, the KM relapse rates were 5.9% from CR-D and 18.7% from CR-IM. Most relapses happened in the first 2 years.

“Our study confirms durable reversal of dysplasia and BE with RFA, which reduces cancer risk by more than 90% compared to historical control data of 6-19% per annum,” the authors wrote.

Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma, there has been only small improvement in 5-year survival over the past 40 years, the authors note. Meanwhile, the incidence of continues to rise in the Western world.
 

Researchers look for minimally invasive solutions

Surgery removing the esophagus and lymph node clearance had been the standard for high-grade dysplasia, the authors wrote. It is still the intervention of choice for patients with locoregional disease, but it comes with high morbidity and mortality rates.

This has spurred researchers to look for a minimally invasive solution focused on organ preservation to treat early disease and avoid surgical side effects but also to deliver a cure, according to the authors.

Shria Kumar, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this publication, “Endoscopic ablation of dysplasia or intramucosal cancer is a mainstay of Barrett’s treatment.”

She noted the importance of the 10-year time period as the initial studies that established ablation evaluated outcomes within 1-3 years, and more recent data shows 5-year favorable outcomes.

Citing a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Kumar said, “The present study’s cohort developed cancer at rates similar to one of the earlier U.S.-based cohorts of Barrett’s patients, suggesting that we can draw some parallels.”

She pointed out notable characteristics in the U.K. cohort: “The majority of participants were male and Caucasian; 80% of had high-grade dysplasia or early cancer upon enrollment and long-segment Barrett’s.”

That difference is important when thinking about how this applies to a more diverse U.S. population, she said, or even patients who don’t have high-grade dysplasia or early cancer when they enroll.

“It’s also important to point out are that individuals with low-grade dysplasia were included in this U.K.-based study. There has been evidence that persons in Europe with low-grade dysplasia have higher rates of progression than persons in the U.S. with low-grade dysplasia.”

Dr. Kumar said this may be attributable to differences in the way pathologists practice in the two countries or in endoscopists’ treatment patterns. U.S. guidelines agree that ablation can be used in select persons with low-grade dysplasia, she said, but it’s an area that needs further study.

“Overall, though, this is a really important study of real-time data showing that ablation is impacting cancer rates in a positive way and that in select patients, we can really decrease the risk of invasive cancer by endoscopic eradication therapies,” Dr. Kumar said.

Two coauthors have received grants from Medtronic and Pentax Medical. The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kumar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective and long lasting in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Paul Wolfson, MBBS, from the Wellcome/EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) Centre for Interventional & Surgical Sciences, University College London also found that most treatment relapses happen early and can be re-treated successfully.

Findings were published in a final 10-year report from the United Kingdom National Halo Radiofrequency Ablation Registry and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Because RFA has been used in mainstream clinical practice only since 2005, long-term data of more than 5 years has been lacking.

Multiple studies have shown that RFA is effective in preventing esophageal cancer, but data have been lacking on how long RFA is effective in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE). A significant number of patients with dysplastic BE do not initially have visible lesions. For instance, the U.S. RFA Patient Registry reported an average 2.7-year follow up of 4,982 patients, but only 1,305 had dysplasia, the authors of the U.K. report note.

“It is well-established that endoscopic treatment of dysplastic BE is initially successful in up to 90% of patients,” the authors wrote. “What is less well understood is how long that benefit lasts and if this contributes to a substantial reduction in progression to cancer.”

Researchers prospectively gathered data from 2,535 patients from 28 U.K. specialist centers who underwent RFA therapy for BE (average length 5.2cm, range 1-20 cm). Among the group, 20% had low-grade dysplasia, 54% had high-grade dysplasia, and 26% had intramucosal carcinoma.

They looked at rates of invasive cancer and analyzed data for 1,175 patients to assess clearance rates of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) within 2 years of starting RFA, then looked at relapses and rates of return to CR-D and CR-IM after more therapy.

One year after RFA therapy, the Kaplan Meier (KM) rate of invasive cancer in the 2,535 patients was 0.5%. Ten years after starting treatment, the KM cancer rate was 4.1%, with a crude incidence rate of 0.52 per 100 patient-years. After 2 years of RFA, CR-D was 88% and CR-IM was 62.6%.

At 8 years, the KM relapse rates were 5.9% from CR-D and 18.7% from CR-IM. Most relapses happened in the first 2 years.

“Our study confirms durable reversal of dysplasia and BE with RFA, which reduces cancer risk by more than 90% compared to historical control data of 6-19% per annum,” the authors wrote.

Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma, there has been only small improvement in 5-year survival over the past 40 years, the authors note. Meanwhile, the incidence of continues to rise in the Western world.
 

Researchers look for minimally invasive solutions

Surgery removing the esophagus and lymph node clearance had been the standard for high-grade dysplasia, the authors wrote. It is still the intervention of choice for patients with locoregional disease, but it comes with high morbidity and mortality rates.

This has spurred researchers to look for a minimally invasive solution focused on organ preservation to treat early disease and avoid surgical side effects but also to deliver a cure, according to the authors.

Shria Kumar, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this publication, “Endoscopic ablation of dysplasia or intramucosal cancer is a mainstay of Barrett’s treatment.”

She noted the importance of the 10-year time period as the initial studies that established ablation evaluated outcomes within 1-3 years, and more recent data shows 5-year favorable outcomes.

Citing a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Kumar said, “The present study’s cohort developed cancer at rates similar to one of the earlier U.S.-based cohorts of Barrett’s patients, suggesting that we can draw some parallels.”

She pointed out notable characteristics in the U.K. cohort: “The majority of participants were male and Caucasian; 80% of had high-grade dysplasia or early cancer upon enrollment and long-segment Barrett’s.”

That difference is important when thinking about how this applies to a more diverse U.S. population, she said, or even patients who don’t have high-grade dysplasia or early cancer when they enroll.

“It’s also important to point out are that individuals with low-grade dysplasia were included in this U.K.-based study. There has been evidence that persons in Europe with low-grade dysplasia have higher rates of progression than persons in the U.S. with low-grade dysplasia.”

Dr. Kumar said this may be attributable to differences in the way pathologists practice in the two countries or in endoscopists’ treatment patterns. U.S. guidelines agree that ablation can be used in select persons with low-grade dysplasia, she said, but it’s an area that needs further study.

“Overall, though, this is a really important study of real-time data showing that ablation is impacting cancer rates in a positive way and that in select patients, we can really decrease the risk of invasive cancer by endoscopic eradication therapies,” Dr. Kumar said.

Two coauthors have received grants from Medtronic and Pentax Medical. The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kumar reports no relevant financial relationships.

A topical formulation of fluticasone designed to dissolve and coat the esophagus appears safe and effective for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EOE), according to new results from a phase 2b study. The results pave the way for phase 3 clinical trials.

Topical steroids are frequently used off-label for EOE. They may be repurposed from nebulizers used for asthma, with patients mixing the drugs themselves or sending them to a pharmacy to be compounded. Patients remove the spacer from a nebulizer in order to swallow the active compound or mix the liquid that would be nebulized with honey or Splenda to thicken it to maximize its contact with the esophagus. “Both of these things are very cumbersome and difficult. I get a lot of complaints from patients [that] it doesn’t taste good. So, the fact that we have a drug that we are already using, but it’s designed for the esophagus, is really exciting,” said Nielsen Fernandez-Becker, MD, PhD, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Fernandez-Becker referred some patients to the trial and performed some procedures.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“I don’t think the findings are unexpected, given what we’ve seen with swallowed inhalers with fluticasone, but I think the real importance of this is that it does look like a dedicated swallow form works. And if this leads to [Food and Drug Administration] approval, then I think that that really becomes a game-changer for this EOE population. Getting something that’s FDA approved to treat this disorder is a key unmet need,” said John Clarke, MD, who was not involved in the study.

He also pointed out that the safety profile of the drug appears good with respect to both candidiasis and adrenal suppression. “It at least seems comparable, if not better than what we’re currently doing with the inhaler,” said Dr. Clarke, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the esophagus program at Stanford University.

Current options for EOE are limited primarily to the use of proton pump inhibitors and food-elimination diets. Oral budesonide is available to patients in Europe and under investigation in the United States.

The new formulation (APT-1011, Ellodi Pharmaceuticals) is meant to be taken without water and dissolves on the tongue and then coats the esophagus.

In the phase 2b study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers randomized 106 adults from six countries with EOE to receive one of four doses of APT-1011, or placebo. Participants had to have current symptoms of dysphagia and active disease after no histologic response from at least 8 weeks of high-dose (20-40 mg/day) proton pump inhibitors. The study included a placebo-controlled, 12-week induction period followed by 40 weeks of maintenance therapy with no placebo arm. The researchers considered a count of fewer than six eosinophils per high-powered field, as measured during an esophageal biopsy, to be a histologic response.

No patients in the placebo group had a response. The response rate was 80% among patients taking a 3-mg dose twice per day; 67% among those taking a 3-mg dose only at bedtime; 86% for those taking 1.5 mg twice per day; and 48% for 1.5 mg only at bedtime (P < .001 for all comparisons to placebo).

After 12 weeks, EOE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) improved from 4.5 to 2.3 in the 3-mg b.i.d. group (5.3-2.1 for bedtime only), and from 4.6 to 1.7 for the 1.5-mg b.i.d. group (5.3-2.9 for 1.5 bedtime only). In the placebo group, the change was from 5.2 to 4.5.

Among those who responded during the induction period, the majority continued to be responders at weeks 26 and 52, including the 3-mg b.i.d. group (88% and 69%, respectively), the 3-mg bedtime-only group (79% and 64%), the 1.5-mg b.i.d. group (89% and 84%), and the 1.5-mg bedtime-only group (70% and 30%).

If approved, the new formulation will likely have a big impact on EOE patients, according to Dr. Fernandez-Becker. “The treatment that we decide on ultimately is through shared decision-making with the physician and the patient. I have many patients who want to go with diet, but it’s very difficult and it takes a long time to tailor the therapy, and many patients are not interested in proton pump inhibitors. So topical steroids are something that I prescribe a lot for patients,” she said.

The fact that the formulation is based on a drug with a known safety record is encouraging, but more research needs to be done. “I don’t expect that this would be any different, but that’s something that’s going to be studied,” said Dr. Fernandez-Becker.

The study was funded by Ellodi Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clarke has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fernandez-Becker has no relevant financial disclosures but was a participant in the study.

A topical formulation of fluticasone designed to dissolve and coat the esophagus appears safe and effective for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EOE), according to new results from a phase 2b study. The results pave the way for phase 3 clinical trials.

Topical steroids are frequently used off-label for EOE. They may be repurposed from nebulizers used for asthma, with patients mixing the drugs themselves or sending them to a pharmacy to be compounded. Patients remove the spacer from a nebulizer in order to swallow the active compound or mix the liquid that would be nebulized with honey or Splenda to thicken it to maximize its contact with the esophagus. “Both of these things are very cumbersome and difficult. I get a lot of complaints from patients [that] it doesn’t taste good. So, the fact that we have a drug that we are already using, but it’s designed for the esophagus, is really exciting,” said Nielsen Fernandez-Becker, MD, PhD, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Fernandez-Becker referred some patients to the trial and performed some procedures.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“I don’t think the findings are unexpected, given what we’ve seen with swallowed inhalers with fluticasone, but I think the real importance of this is that it does look like a dedicated swallow form works. And if this leads to [Food and Drug Administration] approval, then I think that that really becomes a game-changer for this EOE population. Getting something that’s FDA approved to treat this disorder is a key unmet need,” said John Clarke, MD, who was not involved in the study.

He also pointed out that the safety profile of the drug appears good with respect to both candidiasis and adrenal suppression. “It at least seems comparable, if not better than what we’re currently doing with the inhaler,” said Dr. Clarke, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the esophagus program at Stanford University.

Current options for EOE are limited primarily to the use of proton pump inhibitors and food-elimination diets. Oral budesonide is available to patients in Europe and under investigation in the United States.

The new formulation (APT-1011, Ellodi Pharmaceuticals) is meant to be taken without water and dissolves on the tongue and then coats the esophagus.

In the phase 2b study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers randomized 106 adults from six countries with EOE to receive one of four doses of APT-1011, or placebo. Participants had to have current symptoms of dysphagia and active disease after no histologic response from at least 8 weeks of high-dose (20-40 mg/day) proton pump inhibitors. The study included a placebo-controlled, 12-week induction period followed by 40 weeks of maintenance therapy with no placebo arm. The researchers considered a count of fewer than six eosinophils per high-powered field, as measured during an esophageal biopsy, to be a histologic response.

No patients in the placebo group had a response. The response rate was 80% among patients taking a 3-mg dose twice per day; 67% among those taking a 3-mg dose only at bedtime; 86% for those taking 1.5 mg twice per day; and 48% for 1.5 mg only at bedtime (P < .001 for all comparisons to placebo).

After 12 weeks, EOE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) improved from 4.5 to 2.3 in the 3-mg b.i.d. group (5.3-2.1 for bedtime only), and from 4.6 to 1.7 for the 1.5-mg b.i.d. group (5.3-2.9 for 1.5 bedtime only). In the placebo group, the change was from 5.2 to 4.5.

Among those who responded during the induction period, the majority continued to be responders at weeks 26 and 52, including the 3-mg b.i.d. group (88% and 69%, respectively), the 3-mg bedtime-only group (79% and 64%), the 1.5-mg b.i.d. group (89% and 84%), and the 1.5-mg bedtime-only group (70% and 30%).

If approved, the new formulation will likely have a big impact on EOE patients, according to Dr. Fernandez-Becker. “The treatment that we decide on ultimately is through shared decision-making with the physician and the patient. I have many patients who want to go with diet, but it’s very difficult and it takes a long time to tailor the therapy, and many patients are not interested in proton pump inhibitors. So topical steroids are something that I prescribe a lot for patients,” she said.

The fact that the formulation is based on a drug with a known safety record is encouraging, but more research needs to be done. “I don’t expect that this would be any different, but that’s something that’s going to be studied,” said Dr. Fernandez-Becker.

The study was funded by Ellodi Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clarke has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fernandez-Becker has no relevant financial disclosures but was a participant in the study.

A topical formulation of fluticasone designed to dissolve and coat the esophagus appears safe and effective for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EOE), according to new results from a phase 2b study. The results pave the way for phase 3 clinical trials.

Topical steroids are frequently used off-label for EOE. They may be repurposed from nebulizers used for asthma, with patients mixing the drugs themselves or sending them to a pharmacy to be compounded. Patients remove the spacer from a nebulizer in order to swallow the active compound or mix the liquid that would be nebulized with honey or Splenda to thicken it to maximize its contact with the esophagus. “Both of these things are very cumbersome and difficult. I get a lot of complaints from patients [that] it doesn’t taste good. So, the fact that we have a drug that we are already using, but it’s designed for the esophagus, is really exciting,” said Nielsen Fernandez-Becker, MD, PhD, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Fernandez-Becker referred some patients to the trial and performed some procedures.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“I don’t think the findings are unexpected, given what we’ve seen with swallowed inhalers with fluticasone, but I think the real importance of this is that it does look like a dedicated swallow form works. And if this leads to [Food and Drug Administration] approval, then I think that that really becomes a game-changer for this EOE population. Getting something that’s FDA approved to treat this disorder is a key unmet need,” said John Clarke, MD, who was not involved in the study.

He also pointed out that the safety profile of the drug appears good with respect to both candidiasis and adrenal suppression. “It at least seems comparable, if not better than what we’re currently doing with the inhaler,” said Dr. Clarke, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the esophagus program at Stanford University.

Current options for EOE are limited primarily to the use of proton pump inhibitors and food-elimination diets. Oral budesonide is available to patients in Europe and under investigation in the United States.

The new formulation (APT-1011, Ellodi Pharmaceuticals) is meant to be taken without water and dissolves on the tongue and then coats the esophagus.

In the phase 2b study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers randomized 106 adults from six countries with EOE to receive one of four doses of APT-1011, or placebo. Participants had to have current symptoms of dysphagia and active disease after no histologic response from at least 8 weeks of high-dose (20-40 mg/day) proton pump inhibitors. The study included a placebo-controlled, 12-week induction period followed by 40 weeks of maintenance therapy with no placebo arm. The researchers considered a count of fewer than six eosinophils per high-powered field, as measured during an esophageal biopsy, to be a histologic response.

No patients in the placebo group had a response. The response rate was 80% among patients taking a 3-mg dose twice per day; 67% among those taking a 3-mg dose only at bedtime; 86% for those taking 1.5 mg twice per day; and 48% for 1.5 mg only at bedtime (P < .001 for all comparisons to placebo).

After 12 weeks, EOE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) improved from 4.5 to 2.3 in the 3-mg b.i.d. group (5.3-2.1 for bedtime only), and from 4.6 to 1.7 for the 1.5-mg b.i.d. group (5.3-2.9 for 1.5 bedtime only). In the placebo group, the change was from 5.2 to 4.5.

Among those who responded during the induction period, the majority continued to be responders at weeks 26 and 52, including the 3-mg b.i.d. group (88% and 69%, respectively), the 3-mg bedtime-only group (79% and 64%), the 1.5-mg b.i.d. group (89% and 84%), and the 1.5-mg bedtime-only group (70% and 30%).

If approved, the new formulation will likely have a big impact on EOE patients, according to Dr. Fernandez-Becker. “The treatment that we decide on ultimately is through shared decision-making with the physician and the patient. I have many patients who want to go with diet, but it’s very difficult and it takes a long time to tailor the therapy, and many patients are not interested in proton pump inhibitors. So topical steroids are something that I prescribe a lot for patients,” she said.

The fact that the formulation is based on a drug with a known safety record is encouraging, but more research needs to be done. “I don’t expect that this would be any different, but that’s something that’s going to be studied,” said Dr. Fernandez-Becker.

The study was funded by Ellodi Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clarke has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fernandez-Becker has no relevant financial disclosures but was a participant in the study.

International experts have created recommendations on ways to improve adherence to statin therapy by offering doctors guidance on how to distinguish between true side effects of statins and those arising due to patients’ expectations of side effects.

A position paper from the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP), a group of over 70 experts worldwide, provides a step-by-step approach to diagnosing and managing symptoms, such as muscle aches, and encourages patients to continue the statin therapy they have been prescribed.

The authors described in their paper, published in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia, and Muscle, how statins are among the most commonly prescribed drugs globally, with “strong and unambiguous evidence” that statin treatment makes a significant difference in preventing cardiovascular disease and dying from it.

They said how, although a recent meta-analysis showed the prevalence of statin intolerance is less than 10%, “as many as 1 in 2 patients stop taking statins, reduce the dose, or take them irregularly because they believe they are responsible for side effects.”

In addition to misattribution of aches and pains, a substantial proportion of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) result from the action of taking medicines and the expectation that medicines cause side effects. A systematic review of trials estimated that between 38% and 78% of SAMS-related statin intolerance could be attributed to expectation alone.
 

Nocebo/drucebo effect

President of the ILEP, Professor Maciej Banach, of the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, both in Poland, who originated these recommendations, said: “There is an enormous worldwide problem with diagnosing statin intolerance correctly. In addition, we know that most diagnosed statin side effects should not, in fact, be attributed to statin therapy.”

He highlighted how as much as 70% of statin side effect symptoms may be due to a psychological phenomenon called the “nocebo” or “drucebo” effect.

“The ‘nocebo/drucebo’ effect is when patients’ expectations that they will experience side effects from the statins result in them actually experiencing these symptoms,” Professor Banach explained. Knowledge gained from the internet, leaflets, friends and family, and other sources, for example, about the most common side effects – muscle pain and liver complaints – can “result in them discontinuing their therapy and, therefore, increasing their risk of heart problems, stroke, and death,” he cautioned.

First author of the paper, Dr. Peter Penson, a reader in Cardiovascular Pharmacology at Liverpool John Moores University, England, said “the benefits of statins are not seen immediately by patients, whilst the associated adverse effects are more tangible, and so many patients stop taking statins, thereby putting themselves at risk of serious illness or death.”
 

A practical evidence-based guide

The authors expressed hope that their recommendations would help doctors improve patient-centered care for those patients at risk of cardiovascular disease and help these patients understand the reason for their treatment, the benefits, including that statins may prolong their lives, and the potential harms, thus enabling the patient to “make a fully informed decision about commencing and continuing therapy.”

The recommendations include:

• That health care professionals should consider the nocebo/drucebo effect when they first prescribe statins and provide information to patients about the rationale and benefits of the therapy
• The Personalized Lipid Intervention Plan (PLIP) should be used to help this process. It estimates the patient’s 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease with and without statin therapy, as well as providing clear information on adverse side effects, including that muscle symptoms are common but rarely caused by statins
• How to effectively diagnose statin intolerance and exclude nocebo/drucebo effect
• Routine follow-up to check the safety and efficacy of the therapy is recommended, and strategies for managing patients with complete statin intolerance are provided, within the recommendations. Also offered is advice about improving adherence to statin therapy and suggestions for the identification and management of the “relatively small number of patients who have true statin intolerance.”

Dr. Penson emphasized how this was the first paper to deal explicitly with the nocebo/drucebo effect and offers “practical and evidence-based suggestions” to help support individuals who are at risk of cardiovascular disease but who experience adverse effects attributable to their medicines. He added how the PLIP summarizes important lifestyle advice to help patients reduce their risk of heart attacks and strokes and also discusses the evidence for non-statin drugs that can be used to lower cholesterol.

Dr. Penson pointed out how “the vast majority of patients can take statins safely and that the benefits greatly outweigh the potential risk of side effects” and, therefore, an individual’s risk of heart problems, stroke, and death, can be reduced.

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

International experts have created recommendations on ways to improve adherence to statin therapy by offering doctors guidance on how to distinguish between true side effects of statins and those arising due to patients’ expectations of side effects.

A position paper from the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP), a group of over 70 experts worldwide, provides a step-by-step approach to diagnosing and managing symptoms, such as muscle aches, and encourages patients to continue the statin therapy they have been prescribed.

The authors described in their paper, published in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia, and Muscle, how statins are among the most commonly prescribed drugs globally, with “strong and unambiguous evidence” that statin treatment makes a significant difference in preventing cardiovascular disease and dying from it.

They said how, although a recent meta-analysis showed the prevalence of statin intolerance is less than 10%, “as many as 1 in 2 patients stop taking statins, reduce the dose, or take them irregularly because they believe they are responsible for side effects.”

In addition to misattribution of aches and pains, a substantial proportion of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) result from the action of taking medicines and the expectation that medicines cause side effects. A systematic review of trials estimated that between 38% and 78% of SAMS-related statin intolerance could be attributed to expectation alone.
 

Nocebo/drucebo effect

President of the ILEP, Professor Maciej Banach, of the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, both in Poland, who originated these recommendations, said: “There is an enormous worldwide problem with diagnosing statin intolerance correctly. In addition, we know that most diagnosed statin side effects should not, in fact, be attributed to statin therapy.”

He highlighted how as much as 70% of statin side effect symptoms may be due to a psychological phenomenon called the “nocebo” or “drucebo” effect.

“The ‘nocebo/drucebo’ effect is when patients’ expectations that they will experience side effects from the statins result in them actually experiencing these symptoms,” Professor Banach explained. Knowledge gained from the internet, leaflets, friends and family, and other sources, for example, about the most common side effects – muscle pain and liver complaints – can “result in them discontinuing their therapy and, therefore, increasing their risk of heart problems, stroke, and death,” he cautioned.

First author of the paper, Dr. Peter Penson, a reader in Cardiovascular Pharmacology at Liverpool John Moores University, England, said “the benefits of statins are not seen immediately by patients, whilst the associated adverse effects are more tangible, and so many patients stop taking statins, thereby putting themselves at risk of serious illness or death.”
 

A practical evidence-based guide

The authors expressed hope that their recommendations would help doctors improve patient-centered care for those patients at risk of cardiovascular disease and help these patients understand the reason for their treatment, the benefits, including that statins may prolong their lives, and the potential harms, thus enabling the patient to “make a fully informed decision about commencing and continuing therapy.”

The recommendations include:

• That health care professionals should consider the nocebo/drucebo effect when they first prescribe statins and provide information to patients about the rationale and benefits of the therapy
• The Personalized Lipid Intervention Plan (PLIP) should be used to help this process. It estimates the patient’s 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease with and without statin therapy, as well as providing clear information on adverse side effects, including that muscle symptoms are common but rarely caused by statins
• How to effectively diagnose statin intolerance and exclude nocebo/drucebo effect
• Routine follow-up to check the safety and efficacy of the therapy is recommended, and strategies for managing patients with complete statin intolerance are provided, within the recommendations. Also offered is advice about improving adherence to statin therapy and suggestions for the identification and management of the “relatively small number of patients who have true statin intolerance.”

Dr. Penson emphasized how this was the first paper to deal explicitly with the nocebo/drucebo effect and offers “practical and evidence-based suggestions” to help support individuals who are at risk of cardiovascular disease but who experience adverse effects attributable to their medicines. He added how the PLIP summarizes important lifestyle advice to help patients reduce their risk of heart attacks and strokes and also discusses the evidence for non-statin drugs that can be used to lower cholesterol.

Dr. Penson pointed out how “the vast majority of patients can take statins safely and that the benefits greatly outweigh the potential risk of side effects” and, therefore, an individual’s risk of heart problems, stroke, and death, can be reduced.

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

International experts have created recommendations on ways to improve adherence to statin therapy by offering doctors guidance on how to distinguish between true side effects of statins and those arising due to patients’ expectations of side effects.

A position paper from the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP), a group of over 70 experts worldwide, provides a step-by-step approach to diagnosing and managing symptoms, such as muscle aches, and encourages patients to continue the statin therapy they have been prescribed.

The authors described in their paper, published in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia, and Muscle, how statins are among the most commonly prescribed drugs globally, with “strong and unambiguous evidence” that statin treatment makes a significant difference in preventing cardiovascular disease and dying from it.

They said how, although a recent meta-analysis showed the prevalence of statin intolerance is less than 10%, “as many as 1 in 2 patients stop taking statins, reduce the dose, or take them irregularly because they believe they are responsible for side effects.”

In addition to misattribution of aches and pains, a substantial proportion of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) result from the action of taking medicines and the expectation that medicines cause side effects. A systematic review of trials estimated that between 38% and 78% of SAMS-related statin intolerance could be attributed to expectation alone.
 

Nocebo/drucebo effect

President of the ILEP, Professor Maciej Banach, of the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, both in Poland, who originated these recommendations, said: “There is an enormous worldwide problem with diagnosing statin intolerance correctly. In addition, we know that most diagnosed statin side effects should not, in fact, be attributed to statin therapy.”

He highlighted how as much as 70% of statin side effect symptoms may be due to a psychological phenomenon called the “nocebo” or “drucebo” effect.

“The ‘nocebo/drucebo’ effect is when patients’ expectations that they will experience side effects from the statins result in them actually experiencing these symptoms,” Professor Banach explained. Knowledge gained from the internet, leaflets, friends and family, and other sources, for example, about the most common side effects – muscle pain and liver complaints – can “result in them discontinuing their therapy and, therefore, increasing their risk of heart problems, stroke, and death,” he cautioned.

First author of the paper, Dr. Peter Penson, a reader in Cardiovascular Pharmacology at Liverpool John Moores University, England, said “the benefits of statins are not seen immediately by patients, whilst the associated adverse effects are more tangible, and so many patients stop taking statins, thereby putting themselves at risk of serious illness or death.”
 

A practical evidence-based guide

The authors expressed hope that their recommendations would help doctors improve patient-centered care for those patients at risk of cardiovascular disease and help these patients understand the reason for their treatment, the benefits, including that statins may prolong their lives, and the potential harms, thus enabling the patient to “make a fully informed decision about commencing and continuing therapy.”

The recommendations include:

• That health care professionals should consider the nocebo/drucebo effect when they first prescribe statins and provide information to patients about the rationale and benefits of the therapy
• The Personalized Lipid Intervention Plan (PLIP) should be used to help this process. It estimates the patient’s 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease with and without statin therapy, as well as providing clear information on adverse side effects, including that muscle symptoms are common but rarely caused by statins
• How to effectively diagnose statin intolerance and exclude nocebo/drucebo effect
• Routine follow-up to check the safety and efficacy of the therapy is recommended, and strategies for managing patients with complete statin intolerance are provided, within the recommendations. Also offered is advice about improving adherence to statin therapy and suggestions for the identification and management of the “relatively small number of patients who have true statin intolerance.”

Dr. Penson emphasized how this was the first paper to deal explicitly with the nocebo/drucebo effect and offers “practical and evidence-based suggestions” to help support individuals who are at risk of cardiovascular disease but who experience adverse effects attributable to their medicines. He added how the PLIP summarizes important lifestyle advice to help patients reduce their risk of heart attacks and strokes and also discusses the evidence for non-statin drugs that can be used to lower cholesterol.

Dr. Penson pointed out how “the vast majority of patients can take statins safely and that the benefits greatly outweigh the potential risk of side effects” and, therefore, an individual’s risk of heart problems, stroke, and death, can be reduced.

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

Among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) receiving ocrelizumab or rituximab, B cell depletion appears to last well past the 6-month dosing regimen typically used with these drugs. The results, drawn from a retrospective analysis, provide support for clinical trials to rest longer re-infusion intervals.

The study appeared online Jan. 21 in the journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, presented by lead author Mahmoud AbdelRazek, MD, at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Both drugs were approved based on clinical trials that investigated 6-month doses, but previous studies have suggested depletion can last longer, including a range of 9-26 months in the case of rituximab.

The initial rationale for monitoring B cell depletion was to prevent a relapse by re-infusing a patient if B cells levels rise, but the researchers noted a pattern of sustained depletion, especially in patients who had a delayed infusion for some reason – they often still had low B cell counts at the time of the next drug infusion. “That became not an unusual finding,” said Dr. AbdelRazek in an interview. He is an instructor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.

Patients also found the delay appealing, in part because they often felt unwell in the days following an infusion, and delays could mean fewer infections and other adverse effects. “Most of my patients I’ve discussed this with would be very appreciative of that delay,” said Dr. AbdelRazek. “There’s obviously an economic benefit as well,” said Dr. AbdelRazek.
 

The final answer?

The retrospective nature of the study is a key weakness, and the rationale to delay infusions based on continuing B cell depletion assumes that B cell depletion is in fact the mechanism of action for countering MS. “That is a critical question,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. But if that is indeed the way the drugs work, then it would make sense to identify patients who repopulate B cells more slowly and tailor drug regimens. “It’s not one size fits all and blindly just re-dosing. The upsides are good: You come in less frequently for dosing, the cost to payers is less. But the bad is, maybe there are other markers. This is the putative mechanism, but what we believe may not be the final answer. There may be more to the story,” said Dr. Gutesblatt, who is Medical Director at South Shore Neurologic Associates, Patchogue, New York.

Dr. AbdelRazek also noted the study’s limitation. “I think a clinical trial is going to be warranted to really have this translated into clinical practice,” he said. His group is planning to conduct just such a trial, pending confirmation of a funding source.
 

B cell depletion beyond 6 months

The researchers analyzed data from 178 patients with MS and 10 patients with NMOSD who received ocrelizumab (n = 111) or rituximab (n = 53), or both (n = 24) at two Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals between 2010 and 2020. The data included 800 infusions and 1,054 CD19 measurements.

The researchers defined B cell depletion as an absolute count of 20 cells/uL or less, a B cell percentage of 2% or less, or if B cells were 5% or less of total lymphocytes.

Among the patient population, B cell depletion that met all 3 criteria occurred as long as 13.8 months after an initial ocrelizumab infusion cycle, and 22.8 months after second or more cycles of ocrelizumab. Following rituximab, the researchers noted B cell depletions. Following 500 mg of rituximab, B cell depletion defined by the first, second, or third criteria occurred as far out as 22.3, 26.2, and 28.5 months. For 1,000 mg doses of rituximab, B cell depletion occurred as long as 18.3, 18.3, and 29.1 months after a dose.

Examining 90 B cell measurements conducted at least 8 months after an ocrelizumab infusion, 50% were depleted by the first definition and 54% by the second definition. At 13 months, the figures were 58% and 62% among 26 B-cell measurements. Eight months or more after rituximab, 113 B-cell measurements showed rates of 43% and 52% B-cell depletion by the first two criteria.

Dr. AbdelRazek and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) receiving ocrelizumab or rituximab, B cell depletion appears to last well past the 6-month dosing regimen typically used with these drugs. The results, drawn from a retrospective analysis, provide support for clinical trials to rest longer re-infusion intervals.

The study appeared online Jan. 21 in the journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, presented by lead author Mahmoud AbdelRazek, MD, at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Both drugs were approved based on clinical trials that investigated 6-month doses, but previous studies have suggested depletion can last longer, including a range of 9-26 months in the case of rituximab.

The initial rationale for monitoring B cell depletion was to prevent a relapse by re-infusing a patient if B cells levels rise, but the researchers noted a pattern of sustained depletion, especially in patients who had a delayed infusion for some reason – they often still had low B cell counts at the time of the next drug infusion. “That became not an unusual finding,” said Dr. AbdelRazek in an interview. He is an instructor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.

Patients also found the delay appealing, in part because they often felt unwell in the days following an infusion, and delays could mean fewer infections and other adverse effects. “Most of my patients I’ve discussed this with would be very appreciative of that delay,” said Dr. AbdelRazek. “There’s obviously an economic benefit as well,” said Dr. AbdelRazek.
 

The final answer?

The retrospective nature of the study is a key weakness, and the rationale to delay infusions based on continuing B cell depletion assumes that B cell depletion is in fact the mechanism of action for countering MS. “That is a critical question,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. But if that is indeed the way the drugs work, then it would make sense to identify patients who repopulate B cells more slowly and tailor drug regimens. “It’s not one size fits all and blindly just re-dosing. The upsides are good: You come in less frequently for dosing, the cost to payers is less. But the bad is, maybe there are other markers. This is the putative mechanism, but what we believe may not be the final answer. There may be more to the story,” said Dr. Gutesblatt, who is Medical Director at South Shore Neurologic Associates, Patchogue, New York.

Dr. AbdelRazek also noted the study’s limitation. “I think a clinical trial is going to be warranted to really have this translated into clinical practice,” he said. His group is planning to conduct just such a trial, pending confirmation of a funding source.
 

B cell depletion beyond 6 months

The researchers analyzed data from 178 patients with MS and 10 patients with NMOSD who received ocrelizumab (n = 111) or rituximab (n = 53), or both (n = 24) at two Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals between 2010 and 2020. The data included 800 infusions and 1,054 CD19 measurements.

The researchers defined B cell depletion as an absolute count of 20 cells/uL or less, a B cell percentage of 2% or less, or if B cells were 5% or less of total lymphocytes.

Among the patient population, B cell depletion that met all 3 criteria occurred as long as 13.8 months after an initial ocrelizumab infusion cycle, and 22.8 months after second or more cycles of ocrelizumab. Following rituximab, the researchers noted B cell depletions. Following 500 mg of rituximab, B cell depletion defined by the first, second, or third criteria occurred as far out as 22.3, 26.2, and 28.5 months. For 1,000 mg doses of rituximab, B cell depletion occurred as long as 18.3, 18.3, and 29.1 months after a dose.

Examining 90 B cell measurements conducted at least 8 months after an ocrelizumab infusion, 50% were depleted by the first definition and 54% by the second definition. At 13 months, the figures were 58% and 62% among 26 B-cell measurements. Eight months or more after rituximab, 113 B-cell measurements showed rates of 43% and 52% B-cell depletion by the first two criteria.

Dr. AbdelRazek and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) receiving ocrelizumab or rituximab, B cell depletion appears to last well past the 6-month dosing regimen typically used with these drugs. The results, drawn from a retrospective analysis, provide support for clinical trials to rest longer re-infusion intervals.

The study appeared online Jan. 21 in the journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, presented by lead author Mahmoud AbdelRazek, MD, at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Both drugs were approved based on clinical trials that investigated 6-month doses, but previous studies have suggested depletion can last longer, including a range of 9-26 months in the case of rituximab.

The initial rationale for monitoring B cell depletion was to prevent a relapse by re-infusing a patient if B cells levels rise, but the researchers noted a pattern of sustained depletion, especially in patients who had a delayed infusion for some reason – they often still had low B cell counts at the time of the next drug infusion. “That became not an unusual finding,” said Dr. AbdelRazek in an interview. He is an instructor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.

Patients also found the delay appealing, in part because they often felt unwell in the days following an infusion, and delays could mean fewer infections and other adverse effects. “Most of my patients I’ve discussed this with would be very appreciative of that delay,” said Dr. AbdelRazek. “There’s obviously an economic benefit as well,” said Dr. AbdelRazek.
 

The final answer?

The retrospective nature of the study is a key weakness, and the rationale to delay infusions based on continuing B cell depletion assumes that B cell depletion is in fact the mechanism of action for countering MS. “That is a critical question,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. But if that is indeed the way the drugs work, then it would make sense to identify patients who repopulate B cells more slowly and tailor drug regimens. “It’s not one size fits all and blindly just re-dosing. The upsides are good: You come in less frequently for dosing, the cost to payers is less. But the bad is, maybe there are other markers. This is the putative mechanism, but what we believe may not be the final answer. There may be more to the story,” said Dr. Gutesblatt, who is Medical Director at South Shore Neurologic Associates, Patchogue, New York.

Dr. AbdelRazek also noted the study’s limitation. “I think a clinical trial is going to be warranted to really have this translated into clinical practice,” he said. His group is planning to conduct just such a trial, pending confirmation of a funding source.
 

B cell depletion beyond 6 months

The researchers analyzed data from 178 patients with MS and 10 patients with NMOSD who received ocrelizumab (n = 111) or rituximab (n = 53), or both (n = 24) at two Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals between 2010 and 2020. The data included 800 infusions and 1,054 CD19 measurements.

The researchers defined B cell depletion as an absolute count of 20 cells/uL or less, a B cell percentage of 2% or less, or if B cells were 5% or less of total lymphocytes.

Among the patient population, B cell depletion that met all 3 criteria occurred as long as 13.8 months after an initial ocrelizumab infusion cycle, and 22.8 months after second or more cycles of ocrelizumab. Following rituximab, the researchers noted B cell depletions. Following 500 mg of rituximab, B cell depletion defined by the first, second, or third criteria occurred as far out as 22.3, 26.2, and 28.5 months. For 1,000 mg doses of rituximab, B cell depletion occurred as long as 18.3, 18.3, and 29.1 months after a dose.

Examining 90 B cell measurements conducted at least 8 months after an ocrelizumab infusion, 50% were depleted by the first definition and 54% by the second definition. At 13 months, the figures were 58% and 62% among 26 B-cell measurements. Eight months or more after rituximab, 113 B-cell measurements showed rates of 43% and 52% B-cell depletion by the first two criteria.

Dr. AbdelRazek and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new contact lens that elutes the antihistamine ketotifen as a treatment for ocular allergy.

“This is the world’s first and only contact lens that’s able to prevent itching associated with allergies, while at the same time providing vision correction,” said Brian Pall, DO, director of clinical science at Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, which is making the lens. “It’s certainly exciting.”

The new lens, Acuvue Theravision With Ketotifenis, is already on the market in Canada and Japan.

The lenses are daily disposable contacts indicated for the prevention of ocular itch caused by allergic conjunctivitis in people who do not have red eyes, are suitable for wearing contact lenses, and do not have more than 1.00 D of astigmatism.

Antihistamine eyedrops are contraindicated for use with contact lenses because eyedrop preservatives could interact with the lenses, and clinical trials generally exclude contact lens wearers.

Johnson & Johnson worked for over a decade to find an antihistamine that paired well with a contact lens material, finally hitting on the combination of ketotifen and etafilcon A, said Pall. The drug is integrated into the polymer during manufacturing.

In contact with the eye, the drug diffuses from the lens into the tear film and is absorbed by the ocular tissues, much like a conventional eyedrop. “The key difference is that this is a slower release,” Dr. Pall said. “Instead of a bolus of this large drop hitting the eye and then being flushed out immediately, we get a much more sustained release.”

Because the lens is kept sterilized until use, no preservatives are added to the medication. This is an advantage because preservatives cause irritation in some patients.

Ketotifen, a well-established treatment for ocular allergies, not only blocks histamine receptors but also stabilizes mast cells so that they don’t release cytokines, and it prevents inflammatory cells from rushing to the site of irritation, Dr. Pall said.

For a pair of identical clinical trials, published in 2019 in Cornea, Dr. Pall and his colleagues recruited 244 people with ocular allergies. For each trial, they divided these subjects into three groups. One group wore the ketotifen lenses in one eye and lenses without the drug in the other eye. The second group wore the ketotifen lenses in both eyes. The third wore the control lenses in both eyes.

The researchers then exposed the subjects to allergens and asked them to rate the itchiness of their eyes on a scale of 0-4 after 3 minutes, 5 minutes, and 7 minutes. Over these periods, the patients rated itchiness of the eyes with the ketotifen contact lenses a mean from 0.42-0.59; they rated the eyes with the control contacts 1.60-1.94. The differences were statistically significant (P < .001).

While about 5% of patients experienced adverse events, most of the events were not judged to be related to the contact lenses. The most common adverse event, reported by about 1% of patients, was installation site irritation. “The good news, what we’re hearing from the field, is it’s very subtle, it’s pretty mild, and it quickly dissipates,” said Dr. Pall.

The new contact lens “is promising for those who have contact lenses and the 20%-40% of the American population who have allergies,” said Leonard Bielory, MD, a professor of medicine, allergy, immunology, and ophthalmology at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine in Nutley, N.J., who was not involved in the trial or in developing the lens.

“I have patients who wear contacts and have allergies, and they have to work around it,” he said in an interview. “I expected this 15 years ago, because this is a good idea.”

Johnson & Johnson is researching other drugs that might be delivered through contact lenses, Dr. Pall said.

The study was funded by Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Pall is an employee of Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Bielory reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new contact lens that elutes the antihistamine ketotifen as a treatment for ocular allergy.

“This is the world’s first and only contact lens that’s able to prevent itching associated with allergies, while at the same time providing vision correction,” said Brian Pall, DO, director of clinical science at Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, which is making the lens. “It’s certainly exciting.”

The new lens, Acuvue Theravision With Ketotifenis, is already on the market in Canada and Japan.

The lenses are daily disposable contacts indicated for the prevention of ocular itch caused by allergic conjunctivitis in people who do not have red eyes, are suitable for wearing contact lenses, and do not have more than 1.00 D of astigmatism.

Antihistamine eyedrops are contraindicated for use with contact lenses because eyedrop preservatives could interact with the lenses, and clinical trials generally exclude contact lens wearers.

Johnson & Johnson worked for over a decade to find an antihistamine that paired well with a contact lens material, finally hitting on the combination of ketotifen and etafilcon A, said Pall. The drug is integrated into the polymer during manufacturing.

In contact with the eye, the drug diffuses from the lens into the tear film and is absorbed by the ocular tissues, much like a conventional eyedrop. “The key difference is that this is a slower release,” Dr. Pall said. “Instead of a bolus of this large drop hitting the eye and then being flushed out immediately, we get a much more sustained release.”

Because the lens is kept sterilized until use, no preservatives are added to the medication. This is an advantage because preservatives cause irritation in some patients.

Ketotifen, a well-established treatment for ocular allergies, not only blocks histamine receptors but also stabilizes mast cells so that they don’t release cytokines, and it prevents inflammatory cells from rushing to the site of irritation, Dr. Pall said.

For a pair of identical clinical trials, published in 2019 in Cornea, Dr. Pall and his colleagues recruited 244 people with ocular allergies. For each trial, they divided these subjects into three groups. One group wore the ketotifen lenses in one eye and lenses without the drug in the other eye. The second group wore the ketotifen lenses in both eyes. The third wore the control lenses in both eyes.

The researchers then exposed the subjects to allergens and asked them to rate the itchiness of their eyes on a scale of 0-4 after 3 minutes, 5 minutes, and 7 minutes. Over these periods, the patients rated itchiness of the eyes with the ketotifen contact lenses a mean from 0.42-0.59; they rated the eyes with the control contacts 1.60-1.94. The differences were statistically significant (P < .001).

While about 5% of patients experienced adverse events, most of the events were not judged to be related to the contact lenses. The most common adverse event, reported by about 1% of patients, was installation site irritation. “The good news, what we’re hearing from the field, is it’s very subtle, it’s pretty mild, and it quickly dissipates,” said Dr. Pall.

The new contact lens “is promising for those who have contact lenses and the 20%-40% of the American population who have allergies,” said Leonard Bielory, MD, a professor of medicine, allergy, immunology, and ophthalmology at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine in Nutley, N.J., who was not involved in the trial or in developing the lens.

“I have patients who wear contacts and have allergies, and they have to work around it,” he said in an interview. “I expected this 15 years ago, because this is a good idea.”

Johnson & Johnson is researching other drugs that might be delivered through contact lenses, Dr. Pall said.

The study was funded by Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Pall is an employee of Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Bielory reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new contact lens that elutes the antihistamine ketotifen as a treatment for ocular allergy.

“This is the world’s first and only contact lens that’s able to prevent itching associated with allergies, while at the same time providing vision correction,” said Brian Pall, DO, director of clinical science at Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, which is making the lens. “It’s certainly exciting.”

The new lens, Acuvue Theravision With Ketotifenis, is already on the market in Canada and Japan.

The lenses are daily disposable contacts indicated for the prevention of ocular itch caused by allergic conjunctivitis in people who do not have red eyes, are suitable for wearing contact lenses, and do not have more than 1.00 D of astigmatism.

Antihistamine eyedrops are contraindicated for use with contact lenses because eyedrop preservatives could interact with the lenses, and clinical trials generally exclude contact lens wearers.

Johnson & Johnson worked for over a decade to find an antihistamine that paired well with a contact lens material, finally hitting on the combination of ketotifen and etafilcon A, said Pall. The drug is integrated into the polymer during manufacturing.

In contact with the eye, the drug diffuses from the lens into the tear film and is absorbed by the ocular tissues, much like a conventional eyedrop. “The key difference is that this is a slower release,” Dr. Pall said. “Instead of a bolus of this large drop hitting the eye and then being flushed out immediately, we get a much more sustained release.”

Because the lens is kept sterilized until use, no preservatives are added to the medication. This is an advantage because preservatives cause irritation in some patients.

Ketotifen, a well-established treatment for ocular allergies, not only blocks histamine receptors but also stabilizes mast cells so that they don’t release cytokines, and it prevents inflammatory cells from rushing to the site of irritation, Dr. Pall said.

For a pair of identical clinical trials, published in 2019 in Cornea, Dr. Pall and his colleagues recruited 244 people with ocular allergies. For each trial, they divided these subjects into three groups. One group wore the ketotifen lenses in one eye and lenses without the drug in the other eye. The second group wore the ketotifen lenses in both eyes. The third wore the control lenses in both eyes.

The researchers then exposed the subjects to allergens and asked them to rate the itchiness of their eyes on a scale of 0-4 after 3 minutes, 5 minutes, and 7 minutes. Over these periods, the patients rated itchiness of the eyes with the ketotifen contact lenses a mean from 0.42-0.59; they rated the eyes with the control contacts 1.60-1.94. The differences were statistically significant (P < .001).

While about 5% of patients experienced adverse events, most of the events were not judged to be related to the contact lenses. The most common adverse event, reported by about 1% of patients, was installation site irritation. “The good news, what we’re hearing from the field, is it’s very subtle, it’s pretty mild, and it quickly dissipates,” said Dr. Pall.

The new contact lens “is promising for those who have contact lenses and the 20%-40% of the American population who have allergies,” said Leonard Bielory, MD, a professor of medicine, allergy, immunology, and ophthalmology at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine in Nutley, N.J., who was not involved in the trial or in developing the lens.

“I have patients who wear contacts and have allergies, and they have to work around it,” he said in an interview. “I expected this 15 years ago, because this is a good idea.”

Johnson & Johnson is researching other drugs that might be delivered through contact lenses, Dr. Pall said.

The study was funded by Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Pall is an employee of Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Bielory reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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