Obesity-related neuropathy: the new epidemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To examine the evidence evaluating the association between obesity and neuropathy as well as potential interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: Although diabetes has long been associated with neuropathy, additional metabolic syndrome components, including obesity, are increasingly linked to neuropathy development, regardless of glycemic status. Preclinical rodent models as well as clinical studies are shedding light on the mechanisms of obesity-related neuropathy as well as challenges associated with slowing progression. Dietary and surgical weight loss and exercise interventions are promising, but more data is needed. SUMMARY: High-fat-diet rodent models have shown that obesity-related neuropathy is a product of excess glucose and lipid accumulation leading to inflammation and cell death. Clinical studies consistently demonstrate obesity is independently associated with neuropathy; therefore, likely a causal risk factor. Dietary weight loss improves neuropathy symptoms but not examination scores. Bariatric surgery and exercise are promising interventions, but larger, more rigorous studies are needed. Further research is also needed to determine the utility of weight loss medications and ideal timing for obesity interventions to prevent neuropathy.

The effect of surgical weight loss on diabetes complications in individuals with class II/III obesity.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of bariatric surgery on diabetes complications in individuals with class II/III obesity (BMI > 35 kg/m2). METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of participants with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery. At baseline and 2 years following surgery, participants underwent metabolic phenotyping and diabetes complication assessments. The primary outcomes for peripheral neuropathy (PN) were a change in intra-epidermal nerve fibre density (IENFD, units = fibres/mm) at the distal leg and proximal thigh, the primary outcome for cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) was a change in the expiration/inspiration (E/I) ratio, and the primary outcome for retinopathy was a change in the mean deviation on frequency doubling technology testing. RESULTS: Among 127 baseline participants, 79 completed in-person follow-up (age 46.0 ± 11.3 years [mean ± SD], 73.4% female). Participants lost a mean of 31.0 kg (SD 18.4), and all metabolic risk factors improved except for BP and total cholesterol. Following bariatric surgery, one of the primary PN outcomes improved (IENFD proximal thigh, +3.4 ± 7.8, p<0.01), and CAN (E/I ratio -0.01 ± 0.1, p=0.89) and retinopathy (deviation -0.2 ± 3.0, p=0.52) were stable. Linear regression revealed that a greater reduction in fasting glucose was associated with improvements in retinopathy (mean deviation point estimate -0.7, 95% CI -1.3, -0.1). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Bariatric surgery may be an effective approach to reverse PN in individuals with obesity. The observed stability of CAN and retinopathy may be an improvement compared with the natural progression of these conditions; however, controlled trials are needed.

Patient and health care provider knowledge of diabetes and diabetic microvascular complications: a comprehensive literature review.

Diabetic retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy occur in more than 50% of people with diabetes, contributing substantially to morbidity and mortality. Patient understanding of these microvascular complications is essential to ensure early recognition and treatment of these sequalae as well as associated symptoms, yet little is known about patient knowledge of microvascular sequalae. In this comprehensive literature review, we provide an overview of existing knowledge regarding patient knowledge of diabetes, retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy. We also discuss health care provider's knowledge of these sequalae given that patients and providers must work together to achieve optimal care. We evaluated 281 articles on patient and provider knowledge of diabetic retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy as well as predictors of improved knowledge and screening practices. Results demonstrated that patient and provider knowledge of microvascular sequalae varied widely between studies, which may reflect sociocultural or methodologic differences. Knowledge assessment instruments varied between studies with limited validation data and few studies controlled for confounding. Generally, improved patient knowledge was associated with greater formal education, longer diabetes duration, and higher socioeconomic status. Fewer studies examined provider knowledge of sequalae, yet these studies identified multiple misconceptions regarding appropriate screening practices for microvascular complications and the need to screen patients who are asymptomatic. Further investigations are needed that use well validated measures, control for confounding, and include diverse populations. Such studies will allow identification of patients and providers who would benefit from interventions to improve knowledge of microvascular complications and, ultimately, improve patient outcomes.

Diagnostic characteristics of nerve conduction study parameters for vasculitic neuropathy.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: In vasculitic neuropathy (VN), a 50% side-to-side difference in the amplitude of compound muscle action potentials and sensory nerve action potentials is considered meaningful, but unequivocal evidence is lacking. The aim of this study is to characterize electrodiagnostic features that best distinguish VN from other axonal polyneuropathies. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study between January 2000 and April 2021. We reviewed the records of patients with VN who had bilateral nerve conduction studies (NCS) and evaluated different electrodiagnostic models to help distinguish VN from non-inflammatory axonal polyneuropathies. RESULTS: We identified 82 cases, and 174 controls with non-inflammatory axonal neuropathies. The amplitude percent difference Z-score model showed the best discriminatory capability between cases and controls (area under the curve [AUC] 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82, 0.93), and the number of nerves tested did not significantly influence the model. Individually, the ulnar motor nerve (AUC 0.86; 95% CI 0.77, 0.94) and median motor nerve (AUC 0.85; 95% CI 0.77, 0.94) showed the best discriminatory capability. A 50% amplitude difference between at least two bilateral nerves, either in the upper (AUC 0.85; 95% CI 0.77, 0.93) or lower (AUC 0.79; 95% CI 0.71, 0.87) extremity showed good discriminatory threshold for detecting VN. DISCUSSION: The best electrodiagnostic criteria for VN utilizes z-scores of percent differences in nerve amplitudes, but this approach may be difficult to implement at the bedside. Alternately, a 50% amplitude difference in at least two nerves is a reasonable approximation.

Headache neuroimaging: A survey of current practice, barriers, and facilitators to optimal use.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand current practice, clinician understanding, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to optimal headache neuroimaging practices. BACKGROUND: Headaches are common in adults, and neuroimaging for these patients is common, costly, and increasing. Although guidelines recommend against routine headache neuroimaging in low-risk scenarios, guideline-discordant neuroimaging is still frequently performed. METHODS: We administered a 60-item survey to headache clinicians at the Veterans Affairs health system to assess clinician understanding and attitudes on headache neuroimaging and to determine neuroimaging practice patterns for three scenarios describing hypothetical patients with headaches. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses, stratified by clinician type (physicians or advanced practice clinicians [APCs]) and specialty (neurology or primary care). RESULTS: The survey was successfully completed by 431 of 1426 clinicians (30.2% response rate). Overall, 317 of 429 (73.9%) believed neuroimaging was overused for patients with headaches. However, clinicians would utilize neuroimaging a mean (SD) 30.9% (31.7) of the time in a low-risk scenario without red flags, and a mean 67.1% (31.9) of the time in the presence of minor red flags. Clinicians had stronger beliefs in the potential benefits (268/429, 62.5%) of neuroimaging compared to harms (181/429, 42.2%) and more clinicians were bothered by harms stemming from the omission of neuroimaging (377/426, 88.5%) compared to commission (329/424, 77.6%). Additionally, APCs utilized neuroimaging more frequently than physicians and were more receptive to potential interventions to improve neuroimaging utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Although a majority of clinicians believed neuroimaging was overused for patients with headaches, many would utilize neuroimaging in low-risk scenarios with a small probability of changing management. Future studies are needed to define the role of currently used red flags given their importance in neuroimaging decisions. Importantly, APCs may be an ideal target for future optimization efforts.

Painful and non-painful diabetic neuropathy, diagnostic challenges and implications for future management.

Peripheral neuropathy is one of the most common complications of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Up to half of patients with diabetes develop neuropathy during the course of their disease, which is accompanied by neuropathic pain in 30-40% of cases. Peripheral nerve injury in diabetes can manifest as progressive distal symmetric polyneuropathy, autonomic neuropathy, radiculo-plexopathies, and mononeuropathies. The most common diabetic neuropathy is distal symmetric polyneuropathy, which we will refer to as DN, with its characteristic glove and stocking like presentation of distal sensory or motor function loss. DN or its painful counterpart, painful DN, are associated with increased mortality and morbidity; thus, early recognition and preventive measures are essential. Nevertheless, it is not easy to diagnose DN or painful DN, particularly in patients with early and mild neuropathy, and there is currently no single established diagnostic gold standard. The most common diagnostic approach in research is a hierarchical system, which combines symptoms, signs, and a series of confirmatory tests. The general lack of long-term prospective studies has limited the evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of new morphometric and neurophysiological techniques. Thus, the best paradigm for screening DN and painful DN both in research and in clinical practice remains uncertain. Herein, we review the diagnostic challenges from both clinical and research perspectives and their implications for managing patients with DN. There is no established DN treatment, apart from improved glycaemic control, which is more effective in type 1 than in type 2 diabetes, and only symptomatic management is available for painful DN. Currently, less than one-third of patients with painful DN derive sufficient pain relief with existing pharmacotherapies. A more precise and distinct sensory profile from patients with DN and painful DN may help identify responsive patients to one treatment versus another. Detailed sensory profiles will lead to tailored treatment for patient subgroups with painful DN by matching to novel or established DN pathomechanisms and also for improved clinical trials stratification. Large randomized clinical trials are needed to identify the interventions, i.e. pharmacological, physical, cognitive, educational, etc., which lead to the best therapeutic outcomes.

Classification of painful or painless diabetic peripheral neuropathy and identification of the most powerful predictors using machine learning models in large cross-sectional cohorts.

BACKGROUND: To improve the treatment of painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (DPN) and associated co-morbidities, a better understanding of the pathophysiology and risk factors for painful DPN is required. Using harmonised cohorts (N = 1230) we have built models that classify painful versus painless DPN using quality of life (EQ5D), lifestyle (smoking, alcohol consumption), demographics (age, gender), personality and psychology traits (anxiety, depression, personality traits), biochemical (HbA1c) and clinical variables (BMI, hospital stay and trauma at young age) as predictors. METHODS: The Random Forest, Adaptive Regression Splines and Naive Bayes machine learning models were trained for classifying painful/painless DPN. Their performance was estimated using cross-validation in large cross-sectional cohorts (N = 935) and externally validated in a large population-based cohort (N = 295). Variables were ranked for importance using model specific metrics and marginal effects of predictors were aggregated and assessed at the global level. Model selection was carried out using the Mathews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) and model performance was quantified in the validation set using MCC, the area under the precision/recall curve (AUPRC) and accuracy. RESULTS: Random Forest (MCC = 0.28, AUPRC = 0.76) and Adaptive Regression Splines (MCC = 0.29, AUPRC = 0.77) were the best performing models and showed the smallest reduction in performance between the training and validation dataset. EQ5D index, the 10-item personality dimensions, HbA1c, Depression and Anxiety t-scores, age and Body Mass Index were consistently amongst the most powerful predictors in classifying painful vs painless DPN. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning models trained on large cross-sectional cohorts were able to accurately classify painful or painless DPN on an independent population-based dataset. Painful DPN is associated with more depression, anxiety and certain personality traits. It is also associated with poorer self-reported quality of life, younger age, poor glucose control and high Body Mass Index (BMI). The models showed good performance in realistic conditions in the presence of missing values and noisy datasets. These models can be used either in the clinical context to assist patient stratification based on the risk of painful DPN or return broad risk categories based on user input. Model's performance and calibration suggest that in both cases they could potentially improve diagnosis and outcomes by changing modifiable factors like BMI and HbA1c control and institute earlier preventive or supportive measures like psychological interventions.

Comparison of the United Kingdom and United States approaches to approval of new neuromuscular therapies.

Many novel therapies are now available for rare neuromuscular conditions that were previously untreatable. Hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis and spinal muscular atrophy are two examples of diseases with new medications that have transformed our field. The United States and the United Kingdom have taken disparate approaches to the approval and coverage of medications, despite both providing incentives to develop therapies targeting rare diseases. The US requires less evidence for approval when compared with medications for common diseases and does not have a mechanism to ensure or even encourage cost-effectiveness. The Institute of Clinical and Economic Review provides in-depth cost-effectiveness analyses in the US, but does not have the authority to negotiate drug costs. In contrast, the UK has maintained a similar scientific threshold for approval of all therapies, while requiring negotiation with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to ensure that medications are cost-effective for rare diseases. These differences have led to approval of medications for rare diseases in the US that have less evidence than required for common diseases. Importantly, these medications have not been approved in the UK. Even when medications meet traditional scientific thresholds, they uniformly arrive with high list prices in the US, whereas they are available at cost-effective prices in the UK. The main downsides to the UK approach are that cost-effective medications are often available months later than in the US, and some medications remain unavailable.

Patients who meet electrodiagnostic criteria for CIDP rarely present with a sensory predominant DSP phenotype.

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown how often patients with electrodiagnostic evidence of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP), a potentially treatable condition, present with a distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) phenotype. METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients who presented to our electrodiagnostic laboratory between January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2019, and fulfilled electrodiagnostic criteria for CIDP to identify those who presented with a sensory predominant DSP phenotype. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients had a chronic acquired demyelinating neuropathy, of whom 138 met criteria for typical or atypical CIDP. Nine of these patients presented with a sensory predominant DSP phenotype, among whom six were eventually diagnosed with distal acquired demyelinating symmetric (DADS) neuropathy; one with Polyneuropathy, Organomegaly, Endocrinopathy, Monoclonal protein, Skin changes (POEMS) syndrome; and two with idiopathic DSP. The prevalence of acquired chronic demyelinating neuropathies among all patients presenting with a DSP phenotype was estimated to be 0.34%. DISCUSSION: Patients who meet electrodiagnostic criteria for CIDP rarely present with a sensory predominant DSP phenotype, and electrodiagnostic testing rarely identifies treatable demyelinating neuropathies in patients who present with a DSP phenotype.

Diabetic neuropathy in children and youth: New and emerging risk factors.

Pediatric neuropathy attributed to metabolic dysfunction is a well-known complication in children and youth with type 1 diabetes. Moreover, the rise of obesity and in particular of type 2 diabetes may cause an uptick in pediatric neuropathy incidence. However, despite the anticipated increase in neuropathy incidence, pathogenic insights and strategies to prevent or manage neuropathy in the setting of diabetes and obesity in children and youth remain unknown. Data from adult studies and available youth cohort studies are providing an initial understanding of potential diagnostic, management, and preventative measures in early life. This review discusses the current state of knowledge emanating from these efforts, with particular emphasis on the prevalence, clinical presentation, diagnostic approaches and considerations, and risk factors of neuropathy in type 1 and type 2 diabetes in children and youth. Also highlighted are current management strategies and recommendations for neuropathy in children and youth with diabetes. This knowledge, along with continued and sustained emphasis on identifying and eliminating modifiable risk factors, completing randomized controlled trials to assess effectiveness of strategies like weight loss and exercise, and enhancing awareness to support early detection and prevention, are pertinent to addressing the rising incidence of neuropathy associated with diabetes and obesity in children and youth.

Diabetic neuropathy: what does the future hold?

Frustratingly, disease-modifying treatments for diabetic neuropathy remain elusive. Glycaemic control has a robust effect on preventing neuropathy in individuals with type 1 but not in those with type 2 diabetes, which constitute the vast majority of patients. Encouragingly, recent evidence points to new metabolic risk factors and mechanisms, and thus also at novel disease-modifying strategies, which are desperately needed. Obesity has emerged as the second most important metabolic risk factor for neuropathy (diabetes being the first) from consensus findings of seven observational studies in populations across the world. Moreover, dyslipidaemia and altered sphingolipid metabolism are emergent novel mechanisms of nerve injury that may lead to new targeted therapies. Clinical history and examination remain critical components of an accurate diagnosis of neuropathy. However, skin biopsies and corneal confocal microscopy are promising newer tests that have been used as outcome measures in research studies but have not yet demonstrated clear clinical utility. Given the emergence of obesity as a neuropathy risk factor, exercise and weight loss are potential interventions to treat and/or prevent neuropathy, although evidence supporting exercise currently outweighs data supporting weight loss. Furthermore, a consensus has emerged advocating tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitors and gabapentinoids for treating neuropathic pain. Out-of-pocket costs should be considered when prescribing these medications since their efficacy and tolerability are similar. Finally, the downsides of opioid treatment for chronic, non-cancer pain are becoming increasingly evident. Despite these data, current clinical practice frequently initiates and continues opioid prescriptions for patients with neuropathic pain before prescribing guideline-recommended treatments.

Randomized controlled trial of a clinical decision support system for painful polyneuropathy.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the existence of guidelines, painful neuropathy is often inappropriately treated. We sought to determine the effectiveness of a clinical decision support system on guideline-recommended medication use. METHODS: We randomized neurology providers, stratified by subspecialty, to a best practice alert (BPA) linked to a Smartset or a BPA alone when seeing patients with neuropathy. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with uncontrolled nerve pain prescribed a guideline-recommended medication. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess effectiveness. RESULTS: Seventy-five neurology providers (intervention 38, control 37) treated 2697 patients with neuropathy (intervention 1026, control 671). Providers did not acknowledge the BPA in 1928 (71.5%) visits. Only four of eight intervention arm neurologists who treated patients with uncontrolled nerve pain opened the Smartset. The intervention was not associated with guideline-recommended medication use (odds ratio 0.52, 0.18-1.48; intervention 52%, control 54.8%). DISCUSSION: Our intervention did not improve prescribing practices for painful neuropathy. Physicians typically ignored the BPAs/Smartset; therefore, future studies should mandate their use or employ alternate strategies.

Bilateral nerve conduction studies in the evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy.

INTRODUCTION: Nerve conduction studies are used to aid in the diagnosis of distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP). It is unclear whether bilateral lower extremity nerve conduction studies (NCS) are needed when evaluating for suspected DSP. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed NCS from patients who presented to the University of Michigan electromyography laboratory between July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017 with symptoms of DSP to assess agreement and correlation between left and right lower extremity NCS parameters. RESULTS: We found significant agreement between abnormalities in individual nerve parameters of the left and right lower extremities of 105 patients, most notably in the sural nerve. In the 53 patients with bilateral sural, peroneal, and tibial studies, there was also significant agreement between whether the left and right met electrodiagnostic criteria for DSP (κ = 0.77). DISCUSSION: Bilateral lower extremity NCS may have limited utility in the evaluation of suspected DSP. Muscle Nerve, 2019.

Association of neurologist care with headache expenditures: A population-based, longitudinal analysis.

Objective To assess the association of neurologist ambulatory care with healthcare utilization and expenditure in headache. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study from two-year duration panel data, pooled from 2002-2013, of adult respondents identified with diagnostic codes for headache in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Those with a neurologist ambulatory care visit in year one of panel participation were compared with those who did not for the change in annual aggregate direct headache-related health care costs from year one to year two of panel participation, inflated to 2015 US dollars. Results were adjusted via multiple linear regression for demographic and clinical variables, utilizing survey variables for accurate estimates and standard errors. Results Eight hundred and eighty-seven respondents were included, with 23.3% (207/887) seeing a neurologist in year one. The neurologist group had higher year-one mean headache-related expenditures ($3032 vs. $1636), but nearly equal mean year-two expenditures compared to controls ($1900 vs. $1929). Adjusted association between neurologist care and difference in mean annual expenditures from year two to year one was -$1579 (95% CI -$2468, -$690, p < 0.001). Conclusion Among headache sufferers, particularly those with higher headache-related healthcare expenditures, neurologist care is associated with a significant reduction in costs over two years.

Headache neuroimaging: Routine testing when guidelines recommend against them.

AIMS: The aim of this article is to determine the patient-level factors associated with headache neuroimaging in outpatient practice. METHODS: Using data from the 2007-2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NAMCS), we estimated headache neuroimaging utilization (cross-sectional). Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore associations between patient-level factors and neuroimaging utilization. A Markov model with Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate neuroimaging utilization over time at the individual patient level. RESULTS: Migraine diagnoses (OR = 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9) and chronic headaches (routine, chronic OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6; flare-up, chronic OR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.96) were associated with lower utilization, but even in these populations neuroimaging was ordered frequently. Red flags for intracranial pathology did not increase use of neuroimaging studies (OR = 1.4, 95% CI 0.95-2.2). Neurologist visits (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 0.99-2.9) and first visits to a practice (OR = 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.4) were associated with increased imaging. A patient with new migraine headaches has a 39% (95% CI 24-54%) chance of receiving a neuroimaging study after five years and a patient with a flare-up of chronic headaches has a 51% (32-68%) chance. CONCLUSIONS: Neuroimaging is routinely ordered in outpatient headache patients including populations where guidelines specifically recommend against their use (migraines, chronic headaches, no red flags).

Distal Symmetric Polyneuropathy: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: Peripheral neuropathy is a highly prevalent and morbid condition affecting 2% to 7% of the population. Patients frequently experience pain and are at risk of falls, ulcerations, and amputations. We aimed to review recent diagnostic and therapeutic advances in distal symmetric polyneuropathy, the most common subtype of peripheral neuropathy. OBSERVATIONS: Current evidence supports limited routine laboratory testing in patients with distal symmetric polyneuropathy. Patients without a known cause should undergo a complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, vitamin B12 measurement, serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation, fasting glucose measurement, and glucose tolerance test. The presence of atypical features such as asymmetry, non-length dependence, motor predominance, acute or subacute onset, and prominent autonomic involvement should prompt a consultation with a neurologist or neuromuscular specialist. Electrodiagnostic tests and magnetic resonance imaging of the neuroaxis contribute substantial cost to the diagnostic evaluation, but evidence supporting their use is lacking. Strong evidence supports the use of tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and voltage-gated calcium channel ligands in the treatment of neuropathic pain. More intensive glucose control substantially reduces the incidence of distal symmetric polyneuropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes but not in those with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The opportunity exists to improve guideline-concordant testing in patients with distal symmetric polyneuropathy. Moreover, the role of electrodiagnostic tests needs to be further defined, and interventions to reduce magnetic resonance imaging use in this population are needed. Even though several efficacious medications exist for neuropathic pain treatment, pain is still underrecognized and undertreated. New disease-modifying medications are needed to prevent and treat peripheral neuropathy, particularly in type 2 diabetes.

Impact of state Medicaid coverage on utilization of inpatient rehabilitation facilities among patients with stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Poststroke rehabilitation is associated with improved outcomes. Medicaid coverage of inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admissions varies by state. We explored the role of state Medicaid IRF coverage on IRF utilization among patients with stroke. METHODS: Working age ischemic stroke patients with Medicaid were identified from the 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Medicaid coverage of IRFs (yes versus no) was ascertained. Primary outcome was discharge to IRF (versus other discharge destinations). We fit a logistic regression model that included patient demographics, Medicaid coverage, comorbidities, length of stay, tissue-type plasminogen activator use, state Medicaid IRF coverage, and the interaction between patient Medicaid status and state Medicaid IRF coverage while accounting for hospital clustering. RESULTS: Medicaid did not cover IRFs in 4 (TN, TX, SC, WV) of 42 states. The impact of State Medicaid IRF coverage was limited to Medicaid stroke patients (P for interaction <0.01). Compared with Medicaid stroke patients in states with Medicaid IRF coverage, Medicaid stroke patients hospitalized in states without Medicaid IRF coverage were less likely to be discharged to an IRF of 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 8.5%-14.7%) versus 19.5% (95% confidence interval, 18.3%-20.8%), P<0.01 after full adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: State Medicaid coverage of IRFs is associated with IRF utilization among stroke patients with Medicaid. Given the increasing stroke incidence among the working age and Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, careful attention to state Medicaid policy for poststroke rehabilitation and analysis of its effects on stroke outcome disparities are warranted.