Neurology Reviews

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — An over-the-counter antihistamine that had shown potential for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) in animal studies was linked to significant worsening of symptoms in humans, new trial data suggested.

Researchers halted an arm of a clinical trial of clemastine fumarate for MS after a fivefold increase in disease progression was reported in three participants, triggering “stoppage criteria,” investigators said.

The inexpensive antihistamine had been touted as a potential MS treatment following promising early findings, and some patients are reportedly taking it on an off-label basis. It was one of four approved drugs in an ongoing trial led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to investigate the drugs’ efficacy in the treatment of MS.

“Most patients on the other drugs progressed much slower compared to their baseline,” said senior investigator Bibi Bielekova, MD, with NIAID. “When we compare the results in clemastine arm with all other patients treated with the remaining drugs, the probability that our patients progressed by chance is lower than 0.01%.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

TRAP-MS Trial

The OTC antihistamine clemastine has been available for decades under the brand names Tavist and Dayhist. In addition to findings from mouse studies, results from a small clinical trial reported in 2017 suggested that clemastine may promote myelin repair. Other animal studies and another small study with healthy volunteers also suggested the drug may reduce immune activity.

Clemastine fumarate is one of four drugs in the ongoing TRAP-MS phase 1/2 trial, which is sponsored by NIAID. The study is designed to determine what effects, if any, the drugs have on MS biomarkers either alone or in combination.

Other drugs in the study include the diabetes drug pioglitazone (Actos), the muscle relaxant dantrolene (Ryanodex, Revonto, and Dantrium), and the idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis drug pirfenidone (Pirespa).

An estimated 250 adults with MS were expected to be enrolled in the trial, which began in 2017 and is scheduled to reach its primary completion in 2025.

Per the study protocol, nine patients in the clemastine arm were assigned to receive 8 mg/d (divided into three doses of 2, 2, and 4 mg). Cerebrospinal fluid samples were collected at baseline and 6 months after clemastine treatment began.
 

Worsening Symptoms

The three patients whose worsening symptoms triggered stopping criteria when they demonstrated increased disability five times faster than their 18-month baseline, researchers reported.

These participants had increased levels of C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate and gained weight, which study authors said were “suggestive of systemic pro-inflammatory state.”

“We found that clemastine treatment causes significant changes in purinergic metabolism,” lead author Joanna Kocot, PhD, a NIAID fellow, said during the ACTRIMS presentation. “We also confirmed that this toxic effect of clemastine was because of pyroptosis,” a form of cell death.

None of the remaining 55 patients treated with other TRAP-MS therapies triggered safety criteria, which study authors said offered “evidence for clemastine toxicity.”

Demographic information was not provided, but the patients on clemastine with worsening symptoms were older, more disabled, and more obese than the other six patients in the clemastine arm, Dr. Bielekova said during the conference presentation.
 

‘Undesirable’ or ‘Premature’?

Commenting on the findings, Paul J. Tesar, PhD, professor of innovative therapeutics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, said the findings are unexpected.

“Compared to previous trials, the TRAP-MS trial included different patient populations and treated them with clemastine for a longer time period, so it is hard to make direct comparisons,” said Dr. Tesar, who studies MS and did not take part in the new study. “From the limited data disclosed thus far, it does seem likely that clemastine is causing toxicity, possibly through increased inflammation, and accelerating disease progression.”

In the big picture, he said, “while clemastine trials have been important steps toward a first-in-class remyelinating drug, the promiscuous nature of clemastine — it binds to many protein targets — and its known side effects make it undesirable as a mainstay treatment for people with multiple sclerosis.”

Hundreds or perhaps thousands of patients with MS may already take the drug because of the early positive findings, said Ari Green, MD, medical director of the University of California at San Francisco Multiple Sclerosis Center and lead author of the initial 2017 clinical trial on clemastine and myelin repair.

Dr. Green, who was not involved in the new study, said he is skeptical of the findings.

“We can’t conclude much about an effect based on three patients, and the risk that this is a chance effect is extraordinarily high,” he said. “It’s premature to make any attribution of what they saw to clemastine itself.”

Dr. Bielekova disagreed, and said she stands by the findings.

The pyroptosis score, derived from CSF biomarkers, was elevated in MS and higher in progressive MS than in relapsing-remitting MS, she said, adding that pyroptosis correlates with how fast people with MS accumulate disability.

“From all drugs we tested, only clemastine increased this CSF pyroptosis score,” Dr. Bielekova said.

Regardless, Dr. Green urged caution when considering whether to use the drug.

“Nobody should take clemastine without the supervision of a doctor,” he said. “It’s actually best done in the context of clinical trials.”

NIAID funded the study, and the authors had no disclosures. Dr. Tesar is cofounder of Convelo Therapeutics, a biotechnology company developing remyelinating therapeutics for MS. Dr. Green said he is conducting studies related to clemastine, but they do not have industry funding.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — An over-the-counter antihistamine that had shown potential for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) in animal studies was linked to significant worsening of symptoms in humans, new trial data suggested.

Researchers halted an arm of a clinical trial of clemastine fumarate for MS after a fivefold increase in disease progression was reported in three participants, triggering “stoppage criteria,” investigators said.

The inexpensive antihistamine had been touted as a potential MS treatment following promising early findings, and some patients are reportedly taking it on an off-label basis. It was one of four approved drugs in an ongoing trial led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to investigate the drugs’ efficacy in the treatment of MS.

“Most patients on the other drugs progressed much slower compared to their baseline,” said senior investigator Bibi Bielekova, MD, with NIAID. “When we compare the results in clemastine arm with all other patients treated with the remaining drugs, the probability that our patients progressed by chance is lower than 0.01%.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

TRAP-MS Trial

The OTC antihistamine clemastine has been available for decades under the brand names Tavist and Dayhist. In addition to findings from mouse studies, results from a small clinical trial reported in 2017 suggested that clemastine may promote myelin repair. Other animal studies and another small study with healthy volunteers also suggested the drug may reduce immune activity.

Clemastine fumarate is one of four drugs in the ongoing TRAP-MS phase 1/2 trial, which is sponsored by NIAID. The study is designed to determine what effects, if any, the drugs have on MS biomarkers either alone or in combination.

Other drugs in the study include the diabetes drug pioglitazone (Actos), the muscle relaxant dantrolene (Ryanodex, Revonto, and Dantrium), and the idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis drug pirfenidone (Pirespa).

An estimated 250 adults with MS were expected to be enrolled in the trial, which began in 2017 and is scheduled to reach its primary completion in 2025.

Per the study protocol, nine patients in the clemastine arm were assigned to receive 8 mg/d (divided into three doses of 2, 2, and 4 mg). Cerebrospinal fluid samples were collected at baseline and 6 months after clemastine treatment began.
 

Worsening Symptoms

The three patients whose worsening symptoms triggered stopping criteria when they demonstrated increased disability five times faster than their 18-month baseline, researchers reported.

These participants had increased levels of C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate and gained weight, which study authors said were “suggestive of systemic pro-inflammatory state.”

“We found that clemastine treatment causes significant changes in purinergic metabolism,” lead author Joanna Kocot, PhD, a NIAID fellow, said during the ACTRIMS presentation. “We also confirmed that this toxic effect of clemastine was because of pyroptosis,” a form of cell death.

None of the remaining 55 patients treated with other TRAP-MS therapies triggered safety criteria, which study authors said offered “evidence for clemastine toxicity.”

Demographic information was not provided, but the patients on clemastine with worsening symptoms were older, more disabled, and more obese than the other six patients in the clemastine arm, Dr. Bielekova said during the conference presentation.
 

‘Undesirable’ or ‘Premature’?

Commenting on the findings, Paul J. Tesar, PhD, professor of innovative therapeutics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, said the findings are unexpected.

“Compared to previous trials, the TRAP-MS trial included different patient populations and treated them with clemastine for a longer time period, so it is hard to make direct comparisons,” said Dr. Tesar, who studies MS and did not take part in the new study. “From the limited data disclosed thus far, it does seem likely that clemastine is causing toxicity, possibly through increased inflammation, and accelerating disease progression.”

In the big picture, he said, “while clemastine trials have been important steps toward a first-in-class remyelinating drug, the promiscuous nature of clemastine — it binds to many protein targets — and its known side effects make it undesirable as a mainstay treatment for people with multiple sclerosis.”

Hundreds or perhaps thousands of patients with MS may already take the drug because of the early positive findings, said Ari Green, MD, medical director of the University of California at San Francisco Multiple Sclerosis Center and lead author of the initial 2017 clinical trial on clemastine and myelin repair.

Dr. Green, who was not involved in the new study, said he is skeptical of the findings.

“We can’t conclude much about an effect based on three patients, and the risk that this is a chance effect is extraordinarily high,” he said. “It’s premature to make any attribution of what they saw to clemastine itself.”

Dr. Bielekova disagreed, and said she stands by the findings.

The pyroptosis score, derived from CSF biomarkers, was elevated in MS and higher in progressive MS than in relapsing-remitting MS, she said, adding that pyroptosis correlates with how fast people with MS accumulate disability.

“From all drugs we tested, only clemastine increased this CSF pyroptosis score,” Dr. Bielekova said.

Regardless, Dr. Green urged caution when considering whether to use the drug.

“Nobody should take clemastine without the supervision of a doctor,” he said. “It’s actually best done in the context of clinical trials.”

NIAID funded the study, and the authors had no disclosures. Dr. Tesar is cofounder of Convelo Therapeutics, a biotechnology company developing remyelinating therapeutics for MS. Dr. Green said he is conducting studies related to clemastine, but they do not have industry funding.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — An over-the-counter antihistamine that had shown potential for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) in animal studies was linked to significant worsening of symptoms in humans, new trial data suggested.

Researchers halted an arm of a clinical trial of clemastine fumarate for MS after a fivefold increase in disease progression was reported in three participants, triggering “stoppage criteria,” investigators said.

The inexpensive antihistamine had been touted as a potential MS treatment following promising early findings, and some patients are reportedly taking it on an off-label basis. It was one of four approved drugs in an ongoing trial led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to investigate the drugs’ efficacy in the treatment of MS.

“Most patients on the other drugs progressed much slower compared to their baseline,” said senior investigator Bibi Bielekova, MD, with NIAID. “When we compare the results in clemastine arm with all other patients treated with the remaining drugs, the probability that our patients progressed by chance is lower than 0.01%.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

TRAP-MS Trial

The OTC antihistamine clemastine has been available for decades under the brand names Tavist and Dayhist. In addition to findings from mouse studies, results from a small clinical trial reported in 2017 suggested that clemastine may promote myelin repair. Other animal studies and another small study with healthy volunteers also suggested the drug may reduce immune activity.

Clemastine fumarate is one of four drugs in the ongoing TRAP-MS phase 1/2 trial, which is sponsored by NIAID. The study is designed to determine what effects, if any, the drugs have on MS biomarkers either alone or in combination.

Other drugs in the study include the diabetes drug pioglitazone (Actos), the muscle relaxant dantrolene (Ryanodex, Revonto, and Dantrium), and the idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis drug pirfenidone (Pirespa).

An estimated 250 adults with MS were expected to be enrolled in the trial, which began in 2017 and is scheduled to reach its primary completion in 2025.

Per the study protocol, nine patients in the clemastine arm were assigned to receive 8 mg/d (divided into three doses of 2, 2, and 4 mg). Cerebrospinal fluid samples were collected at baseline and 6 months after clemastine treatment began.
 

Worsening Symptoms

The three patients whose worsening symptoms triggered stopping criteria when they demonstrated increased disability five times faster than their 18-month baseline, researchers reported.

These participants had increased levels of C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate and gained weight, which study authors said were “suggestive of systemic pro-inflammatory state.”

“We found that clemastine treatment causes significant changes in purinergic metabolism,” lead author Joanna Kocot, PhD, a NIAID fellow, said during the ACTRIMS presentation. “We also confirmed that this toxic effect of clemastine was because of pyroptosis,” a form of cell death.

None of the remaining 55 patients treated with other TRAP-MS therapies triggered safety criteria, which study authors said offered “evidence for clemastine toxicity.”

Demographic information was not provided, but the patients on clemastine with worsening symptoms were older, more disabled, and more obese than the other six patients in the clemastine arm, Dr. Bielekova said during the conference presentation.
 

‘Undesirable’ or ‘Premature’?

Commenting on the findings, Paul J. Tesar, PhD, professor of innovative therapeutics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, said the findings are unexpected.

“Compared to previous trials, the TRAP-MS trial included different patient populations and treated them with clemastine for a longer time period, so it is hard to make direct comparisons,” said Dr. Tesar, who studies MS and did not take part in the new study. “From the limited data disclosed thus far, it does seem likely that clemastine is causing toxicity, possibly through increased inflammation, and accelerating disease progression.”

In the big picture, he said, “while clemastine trials have been important steps toward a first-in-class remyelinating drug, the promiscuous nature of clemastine — it binds to many protein targets — and its known side effects make it undesirable as a mainstay treatment for people with multiple sclerosis.”

Hundreds or perhaps thousands of patients with MS may already take the drug because of the early positive findings, said Ari Green, MD, medical director of the University of California at San Francisco Multiple Sclerosis Center and lead author of the initial 2017 clinical trial on clemastine and myelin repair.

Dr. Green, who was not involved in the new study, said he is skeptical of the findings.

“We can’t conclude much about an effect based on three patients, and the risk that this is a chance effect is extraordinarily high,” he said. “It’s premature to make any attribution of what they saw to clemastine itself.”

Dr. Bielekova disagreed, and said she stands by the findings.

The pyroptosis score, derived from CSF biomarkers, was elevated in MS and higher in progressive MS than in relapsing-remitting MS, she said, adding that pyroptosis correlates with how fast people with MS accumulate disability.

“From all drugs we tested, only clemastine increased this CSF pyroptosis score,” Dr. Bielekova said.

Regardless, Dr. Green urged caution when considering whether to use the drug.

“Nobody should take clemastine without the supervision of a doctor,” he said. “It’s actually best done in the context of clinical trials.”

NIAID funded the study, and the authors had no disclosures. Dr. Tesar is cofounder of Convelo Therapeutics, a biotechnology company developing remyelinating therapeutics for MS. Dr. Green said he is conducting studies related to clemastine, but they do not have industry funding.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WEST PALM BEACH, CALIFORNIA — Aspirin and acetaminophen may offer an effective and inexpensive solution to exercise-induced heat sensitivity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), results from a new phase 3 trial suggested.

The findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study could solve this common problem, known clinically as Uhthoff’s phenomenon, that causes temporary worsening of MS symptoms with heat exposure.

“This could be a game changer,” said study investigator Victoria M. Leavitt, PhD, assistant professor of neuropsychology of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. 

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) and published online in the Journal of Neurology. 
 

A Common Condition

Research suggested that 60%-80% of MS patients experience heat sensitivity. However, while the exact cause is unknown, some evidence suggested it may be related to hypothalamic dysregulation or lesions of the hypothalamus.

Researchers have explored cooling strategies such as liquid-cooled clothing, but available tools can be hard to find, expensive, and cumbersome. Although aspirin has been linked to some symptom improvement in MS, its utility and that of acetaminophen for the condition has not been studied, Dr. Leavitt said. 

For the single-center study, researchers recruited 60 patients (81% female; average age, 42 years; 73% White individuals) between 2019 and 2022. Overall, 37 completed at least one study visit, and 29 completed two to three visits. The average disease duration was 6 years. 

Participants received oral administration of 650 mg aspirin, acetaminophen, or placebo at each of three study visits over 3 weeks, separated by at least 1 week. At each visit, they took part in a maximal exercise test conducted on a cycle ergometer and were asked to cycle at 50-60 revolutions/min for as long as possible. 

Compared with placebo, body temperature increase from baseline to exercise stoppage was significantly reduced with aspirin (0.006 °F vs 0.68 °F; P < .001) and with acetaminophen (0.31 °F vs 0.68 °F; P < .004) 

Neither medication was associated with a significant difference in time to exhaustion, and there were no serious adverse events.

“This is really nice because some people might have an adverse reaction to aspirin,” such as gastrointestinal issues. Acetaminophen has a different side-effect profile,” Dr. Leavitt said. 

Both medications are inexpensive and available over the counter. The 650-mg acetaminophen dose used in the study is available in an extended-release formula. Typically aspirin isn’t available in doses larger than 325 mg. The 650-mg dose used in the study is considered safe but large. 

Dr. Leavitt said she would like to study daily aspirin in people with MS to see if it can boost physical activity. “That’s the test of whether this will meaningfully affect the lives of people with MS,” she said. 
 

No Harm From Overheating

Commenting on the findings, Katherine Knox, MD, associate professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, noted that “the intervention maybe be initially helpful for the person fearful of getting weaker when they get ‘hot’ with exercise.” 

Dr. Knox, who wasn’t involved in the research, added that it’s important for patients with MS to overcome initial barriers and fears about exercise. 

“However, for most people the effects of being warm with exercise are less concerning for them after education that the weakness is temporary and does not cause harm if one takes the right precautions such as planning ahead to avoid a fall,” she said. Also, inexpensive interventions such as a fan or a wet cotton headband can be helpful, she said. 

The study “provides further evidence that the ‘overheating’ is not causing harm since the time to exhaustion was unchanged,” Dr. Knox added. 

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Knox was not available.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WEST PALM BEACH, CALIFORNIA — Aspirin and acetaminophen may offer an effective and inexpensive solution to exercise-induced heat sensitivity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), results from a new phase 3 trial suggested.

The findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study could solve this common problem, known clinically as Uhthoff’s phenomenon, that causes temporary worsening of MS symptoms with heat exposure.

“This could be a game changer,” said study investigator Victoria M. Leavitt, PhD, assistant professor of neuropsychology of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. 

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) and published online in the Journal of Neurology. 
 

A Common Condition

Research suggested that 60%-80% of MS patients experience heat sensitivity. However, while the exact cause is unknown, some evidence suggested it may be related to hypothalamic dysregulation or lesions of the hypothalamus.

Researchers have explored cooling strategies such as liquid-cooled clothing, but available tools can be hard to find, expensive, and cumbersome. Although aspirin has been linked to some symptom improvement in MS, its utility and that of acetaminophen for the condition has not been studied, Dr. Leavitt said. 

For the single-center study, researchers recruited 60 patients (81% female; average age, 42 years; 73% White individuals) between 2019 and 2022. Overall, 37 completed at least one study visit, and 29 completed two to three visits. The average disease duration was 6 years. 

Participants received oral administration of 650 mg aspirin, acetaminophen, or placebo at each of three study visits over 3 weeks, separated by at least 1 week. At each visit, they took part in a maximal exercise test conducted on a cycle ergometer and were asked to cycle at 50-60 revolutions/min for as long as possible. 

Compared with placebo, body temperature increase from baseline to exercise stoppage was significantly reduced with aspirin (0.006 °F vs 0.68 °F; P < .001) and with acetaminophen (0.31 °F vs 0.68 °F; P < .004) 

Neither medication was associated with a significant difference in time to exhaustion, and there were no serious adverse events.

“This is really nice because some people might have an adverse reaction to aspirin,” such as gastrointestinal issues. Acetaminophen has a different side-effect profile,” Dr. Leavitt said. 

Both medications are inexpensive and available over the counter. The 650-mg acetaminophen dose used in the study is available in an extended-release formula. Typically aspirin isn’t available in doses larger than 325 mg. The 650-mg dose used in the study is considered safe but large. 

Dr. Leavitt said she would like to study daily aspirin in people with MS to see if it can boost physical activity. “That’s the test of whether this will meaningfully affect the lives of people with MS,” she said. 
 

No Harm From Overheating

Commenting on the findings, Katherine Knox, MD, associate professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, noted that “the intervention maybe be initially helpful for the person fearful of getting weaker when they get ‘hot’ with exercise.” 

Dr. Knox, who wasn’t involved in the research, added that it’s important for patients with MS to overcome initial barriers and fears about exercise. 

“However, for most people the effects of being warm with exercise are less concerning for them after education that the weakness is temporary and does not cause harm if one takes the right precautions such as planning ahead to avoid a fall,” she said. Also, inexpensive interventions such as a fan or a wet cotton headband can be helpful, she said. 

The study “provides further evidence that the ‘overheating’ is not causing harm since the time to exhaustion was unchanged,” Dr. Knox added. 

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Knox was not available.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WEST PALM BEACH, CALIFORNIA — Aspirin and acetaminophen may offer an effective and inexpensive solution to exercise-induced heat sensitivity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), results from a new phase 3 trial suggested.

The findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study could solve this common problem, known clinically as Uhthoff’s phenomenon, that causes temporary worsening of MS symptoms with heat exposure.

“This could be a game changer,” said study investigator Victoria M. Leavitt, PhD, assistant professor of neuropsychology of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. 

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) and published online in the Journal of Neurology. 
 

A Common Condition

Research suggested that 60%-80% of MS patients experience heat sensitivity. However, while the exact cause is unknown, some evidence suggested it may be related to hypothalamic dysregulation or lesions of the hypothalamus.

Researchers have explored cooling strategies such as liquid-cooled clothing, but available tools can be hard to find, expensive, and cumbersome. Although aspirin has been linked to some symptom improvement in MS, its utility and that of acetaminophen for the condition has not been studied, Dr. Leavitt said. 

For the single-center study, researchers recruited 60 patients (81% female; average age, 42 years; 73% White individuals) between 2019 and 2022. Overall, 37 completed at least one study visit, and 29 completed two to three visits. The average disease duration was 6 years. 

Participants received oral administration of 650 mg aspirin, acetaminophen, or placebo at each of three study visits over 3 weeks, separated by at least 1 week. At each visit, they took part in a maximal exercise test conducted on a cycle ergometer and were asked to cycle at 50-60 revolutions/min for as long as possible. 

Compared with placebo, body temperature increase from baseline to exercise stoppage was significantly reduced with aspirin (0.006 °F vs 0.68 °F; P < .001) and with acetaminophen (0.31 °F vs 0.68 °F; P < .004) 

Neither medication was associated with a significant difference in time to exhaustion, and there were no serious adverse events.

“This is really nice because some people might have an adverse reaction to aspirin,” such as gastrointestinal issues. Acetaminophen has a different side-effect profile,” Dr. Leavitt said. 

Both medications are inexpensive and available over the counter. The 650-mg acetaminophen dose used in the study is available in an extended-release formula. Typically aspirin isn’t available in doses larger than 325 mg. The 650-mg dose used in the study is considered safe but large. 

Dr. Leavitt said she would like to study daily aspirin in people with MS to see if it can boost physical activity. “That’s the test of whether this will meaningfully affect the lives of people with MS,” she said. 
 

No Harm From Overheating

Commenting on the findings, Katherine Knox, MD, associate professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, noted that “the intervention maybe be initially helpful for the person fearful of getting weaker when they get ‘hot’ with exercise.” 

Dr. Knox, who wasn’t involved in the research, added that it’s important for patients with MS to overcome initial barriers and fears about exercise. 

“However, for most people the effects of being warm with exercise are less concerning for them after education that the weakness is temporary and does not cause harm if one takes the right precautions such as planning ahead to avoid a fall,” she said. Also, inexpensive interventions such as a fan or a wet cotton headband can be helpful, she said. 

The study “provides further evidence that the ‘overheating’ is not causing harm since the time to exhaustion was unchanged,” Dr. Knox added. 

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Knox was not available.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I had a premed college student with me, a young lady trying to figure out if medicine was for her, and what exactly a neurologist does.

The patient, a gentlemen in his mid-70s, had just left. He had some unusual symptoms. Not implausible, but the kind of case where the answers don’t come together easily. I’d ordered tests for the usual suspects and walked him up front.

When I got back she asked me “what do you think is wrong with him?”

Without thinking I said “I have no idea.” By this time I’d turned to some scheduling messages from my secretary, and didn’t register the student’s surprise for a moment.

I mean, I’m an attending physician. To her I’m the epitome of the career. I got accepted to (and survived) medical school. I made it through residency and fellowship and have almost 26 years of trench-earned experience behind me (hard to believe for me, too, sometimes). And yet I’d just said I didn’t know what was going on.

Reversing the roles and thinking back to the late 1980s, I probably would have felt the same way she did.

Of course “I have no idea” is a bit of unintentional hyperbole. I have some idea, just not a clear answer yet. I’d turned over the possible locations and causes, and so ordered tests to help narrow it down. As one of my attendings in residency used to say, “some days you need a rifle, some days a shotgun” to figure it out.

Being a doctor, even a good one (I hope I am, but not making any guarantees) doesn’t mean you know everything, or have the ability to figure it out immediately. Otherwise we wouldn’t need imaging, labs, and a host of other tests. Sherlock Holmes was a lot of things, but Watson was the doctor.

To those at the beginning of their careers, just like it was to us then, this is a revelation. Aren’t we supposed to know everything? We probably once believed we would, too, someday.

What we learn through training and years of experience isn’t so much the answers to everything as much as the road map on how to get there. What combination of tests and decisions will hopefully lead us to the correct point.

Most of us realize that intuitively at this point, but it can be hard to explain to others. We have patients ask “what do you think is going on?” and we often have no answer other than “not sure yet, but I’ll try to find out.”

We don’t realize how far we’ve come until we see ourselves in someone who’s starting the same journey. And that’s something you can’t teach.

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

I had a premed college student with me, a young lady trying to figure out if medicine was for her, and what exactly a neurologist does.

The patient, a gentlemen in his mid-70s, had just left. He had some unusual symptoms. Not implausible, but the kind of case where the answers don’t come together easily. I’d ordered tests for the usual suspects and walked him up front.

When I got back she asked me “what do you think is wrong with him?”

Without thinking I said “I have no idea.” By this time I’d turned to some scheduling messages from my secretary, and didn’t register the student’s surprise for a moment.

I mean, I’m an attending physician. To her I’m the epitome of the career. I got accepted to (and survived) medical school. I made it through residency and fellowship and have almost 26 years of trench-earned experience behind me (hard to believe for me, too, sometimes). And yet I’d just said I didn’t know what was going on.

Reversing the roles and thinking back to the late 1980s, I probably would have felt the same way she did.

Of course “I have no idea” is a bit of unintentional hyperbole. I have some idea, just not a clear answer yet. I’d turned over the possible locations and causes, and so ordered tests to help narrow it down. As one of my attendings in residency used to say, “some days you need a rifle, some days a shotgun” to figure it out.

Being a doctor, even a good one (I hope I am, but not making any guarantees) doesn’t mean you know everything, or have the ability to figure it out immediately. Otherwise we wouldn’t need imaging, labs, and a host of other tests. Sherlock Holmes was a lot of things, but Watson was the doctor.

To those at the beginning of their careers, just like it was to us then, this is a revelation. Aren’t we supposed to know everything? We probably once believed we would, too, someday.

What we learn through training and years of experience isn’t so much the answers to everything as much as the road map on how to get there. What combination of tests and decisions will hopefully lead us to the correct point.

Most of us realize that intuitively at this point, but it can be hard to explain to others. We have patients ask “what do you think is going on?” and we often have no answer other than “not sure yet, but I’ll try to find out.”

We don’t realize how far we’ve come until we see ourselves in someone who’s starting the same journey. And that’s something you can’t teach.

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

I had a premed college student with me, a young lady trying to figure out if medicine was for her, and what exactly a neurologist does.

The patient, a gentlemen in his mid-70s, had just left. He had some unusual symptoms. Not implausible, but the kind of case where the answers don’t come together easily. I’d ordered tests for the usual suspects and walked him up front.

When I got back she asked me “what do you think is wrong with him?”

Without thinking I said “I have no idea.” By this time I’d turned to some scheduling messages from my secretary, and didn’t register the student’s surprise for a moment.

I mean, I’m an attending physician. To her I’m the epitome of the career. I got accepted to (and survived) medical school. I made it through residency and fellowship and have almost 26 years of trench-earned experience behind me (hard to believe for me, too, sometimes). And yet I’d just said I didn’t know what was going on.

Reversing the roles and thinking back to the late 1980s, I probably would have felt the same way she did.

Of course “I have no idea” is a bit of unintentional hyperbole. I have some idea, just not a clear answer yet. I’d turned over the possible locations and causes, and so ordered tests to help narrow it down. As one of my attendings in residency used to say, “some days you need a rifle, some days a shotgun” to figure it out.

Being a doctor, even a good one (I hope I am, but not making any guarantees) doesn’t mean you know everything, or have the ability to figure it out immediately. Otherwise we wouldn’t need imaging, labs, and a host of other tests. Sherlock Holmes was a lot of things, but Watson was the doctor.

To those at the beginning of their careers, just like it was to us then, this is a revelation. Aren’t we supposed to know everything? We probably once believed we would, too, someday.

What we learn through training and years of experience isn’t so much the answers to everything as much as the road map on how to get there. What combination of tests and decisions will hopefully lead us to the correct point.

Most of us realize that intuitively at this point, but it can be hard to explain to others. We have patients ask “what do you think is going on?” and we often have no answer other than “not sure yet, but I’ll try to find out.”

We don’t realize how far we’ve come until we see ourselves in someone who’s starting the same journey. And that’s something you can’t teach.

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

Skipping meals, mood and anxiety disorders, as well as vaping and substance use, all raise the risk for frequent recurrent headaches in children and adolescents, new data from a population-based study showed.

Children and teens with anxiety or mood disorders had twice the risk for frequent headaches, defined as occurring once or more per week, and those who regularly ate breakfast and dinners with their family had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who did not eat regular meals.

“It is not uncommon for children and teens to have headaches, and while medications are used to stop and sometimes prevent headaches, lifestyle changes also may offer an effective route to relief by preventing headaches from happening and improving quality of life,” study investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, MSc, University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Negative Consequences

Previous research shows frequent recurrent headaches occur in up to 30% of children and adolescents and can lead to lower academic achievement and lower quality of life.

Treatment recommendations often focus on adjusting lifestyle behaviors, such as sleep and meal timing or smoking.

To further investigate these links, researchers used data from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth and included about 5 million children and teens aged 5-17 years. In most cases, a parent or guardian answered the survey questions.

In addition to assessing participants for headache frequency in the past week, the survey included questions about how often they had breakfast, were physically active, or spent playing video games or with a mobile device, for instance. Parents/guardians were also asked whether the youth had ever been diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder.

For participants aged between 12 and 17 years, there were also questions about smoking, alcohol consumption, and substance use.

The mean age of participants was 11 years, and 48% were female. About 6% of the participants had frequent recurrent headaches.

Investigators found that meal regularity was inversely associated with frequent headaches (P < .001). In an adjusted model, youth who often ate breakfast and dinner with their families had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who didn’t dine with their families regularly.

“It is possible regular family meals may lead to greater connectedness and communication within the family and better mental health outcomes, which in turn may impact headache frequency,” Dr. Orr noted.

Youth who spent more than 21 hours per week in front of computer screens or with video games had higher odds for frequent headaches (P < .001), but this association did not survive statistical adjustment for demographics or lifestyle factors.

Both mood and anxiety disorders were associated with twice the risk for frequent headaches, and this risk survived adjustment for age, sex, household income, and other lifestyle factors.

In adolescents aged 12-17 years, there was an association between drinking alcohol and frequent headache, with higher alcohol consumption increasing the likelihood of frequent headache. For instance, those who drank once or more per week had three times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001), and those who indulged in binge drinking at least five times per month had five times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001).

Smoking cannabis was also associated with frequent headache in a dose-dependent manner. Daily users had a threefold increased risk for frequent headache vs those who didn’t use cannabis (P < .001).

Similarly, those who smoked or used e-cigarettes daily also had a threefold increased risk for frequent headaches versus nonusers.

One of the study’s limitations was that it didn’t include participants living in foster homes, institutions or on First Nation reserves. Investigators also were not able to determine headache type and did not assess hydration, which can be an important lifestyle factor in headache etiology.
 

Prioritize Questions About Lifestyle?

In an accompanying editorial, Irene Patniyot, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, noted that lifestyle advice is an important part of managing headache disorders in children and youth and questioned whether neurologists should prioritize discussions about lifestyle habits in this patient population. However, she noted, given the heavy demands on neurologists’ time, this may be “idealistic.”

One potential solution may lie in automating electronic questionnaires for inclusion in patients’ medical records. “Data extraction from electronic questionnaires has already led to new data on symptoms associated with headache in youth and can potentially lead to earlier identification and treatment of mental health disorders and lifestyle habits that negatively affect headache burden and overall well-being,” Dr. Patniyot wrote.

The study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Statistics Canada. Dr. Orr reported receiving royalties from Cambridge University Press; serving on the editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation; and receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Skipping meals, mood and anxiety disorders, as well as vaping and substance use, all raise the risk for frequent recurrent headaches in children and adolescents, new data from a population-based study showed.

Children and teens with anxiety or mood disorders had twice the risk for frequent headaches, defined as occurring once or more per week, and those who regularly ate breakfast and dinners with their family had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who did not eat regular meals.

“It is not uncommon for children and teens to have headaches, and while medications are used to stop and sometimes prevent headaches, lifestyle changes also may offer an effective route to relief by preventing headaches from happening and improving quality of life,” study investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, MSc, University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Negative Consequences

Previous research shows frequent recurrent headaches occur in up to 30% of children and adolescents and can lead to lower academic achievement and lower quality of life.

Treatment recommendations often focus on adjusting lifestyle behaviors, such as sleep and meal timing or smoking.

To further investigate these links, researchers used data from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth and included about 5 million children and teens aged 5-17 years. In most cases, a parent or guardian answered the survey questions.

In addition to assessing participants for headache frequency in the past week, the survey included questions about how often they had breakfast, were physically active, or spent playing video games or with a mobile device, for instance. Parents/guardians were also asked whether the youth had ever been diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder.

For participants aged between 12 and 17 years, there were also questions about smoking, alcohol consumption, and substance use.

The mean age of participants was 11 years, and 48% were female. About 6% of the participants had frequent recurrent headaches.

Investigators found that meal regularity was inversely associated with frequent headaches (P < .001). In an adjusted model, youth who often ate breakfast and dinner with their families had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who didn’t dine with their families regularly.

“It is possible regular family meals may lead to greater connectedness and communication within the family and better mental health outcomes, which in turn may impact headache frequency,” Dr. Orr noted.

Youth who spent more than 21 hours per week in front of computer screens or with video games had higher odds for frequent headaches (P < .001), but this association did not survive statistical adjustment for demographics or lifestyle factors.

Both mood and anxiety disorders were associated with twice the risk for frequent headaches, and this risk survived adjustment for age, sex, household income, and other lifestyle factors.

In adolescents aged 12-17 years, there was an association between drinking alcohol and frequent headache, with higher alcohol consumption increasing the likelihood of frequent headache. For instance, those who drank once or more per week had three times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001), and those who indulged in binge drinking at least five times per month had five times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001).

Smoking cannabis was also associated with frequent headache in a dose-dependent manner. Daily users had a threefold increased risk for frequent headache vs those who didn’t use cannabis (P < .001).

Similarly, those who smoked or used e-cigarettes daily also had a threefold increased risk for frequent headaches versus nonusers.

One of the study’s limitations was that it didn’t include participants living in foster homes, institutions or on First Nation reserves. Investigators also were not able to determine headache type and did not assess hydration, which can be an important lifestyle factor in headache etiology.
 

Prioritize Questions About Lifestyle?

In an accompanying editorial, Irene Patniyot, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, noted that lifestyle advice is an important part of managing headache disorders in children and youth and questioned whether neurologists should prioritize discussions about lifestyle habits in this patient population. However, she noted, given the heavy demands on neurologists’ time, this may be “idealistic.”

One potential solution may lie in automating electronic questionnaires for inclusion in patients’ medical records. “Data extraction from electronic questionnaires has already led to new data on symptoms associated with headache in youth and can potentially lead to earlier identification and treatment of mental health disorders and lifestyle habits that negatively affect headache burden and overall well-being,” Dr. Patniyot wrote.

The study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Statistics Canada. Dr. Orr reported receiving royalties from Cambridge University Press; serving on the editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation; and receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Skipping meals, mood and anxiety disorders, as well as vaping and substance use, all raise the risk for frequent recurrent headaches in children and adolescents, new data from a population-based study showed.

Children and teens with anxiety or mood disorders had twice the risk for frequent headaches, defined as occurring once or more per week, and those who regularly ate breakfast and dinners with their family had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who did not eat regular meals.

“It is not uncommon for children and teens to have headaches, and while medications are used to stop and sometimes prevent headaches, lifestyle changes also may offer an effective route to relief by preventing headaches from happening and improving quality of life,” study investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, MSc, University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Negative Consequences

Previous research shows frequent recurrent headaches occur in up to 30% of children and adolescents and can lead to lower academic achievement and lower quality of life.

Treatment recommendations often focus on adjusting lifestyle behaviors, such as sleep and meal timing or smoking.

To further investigate these links, researchers used data from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth and included about 5 million children and teens aged 5-17 years. In most cases, a parent or guardian answered the survey questions.

In addition to assessing participants for headache frequency in the past week, the survey included questions about how often they had breakfast, were physically active, or spent playing video games or with a mobile device, for instance. Parents/guardians were also asked whether the youth had ever been diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder.

For participants aged between 12 and 17 years, there were also questions about smoking, alcohol consumption, and substance use.

The mean age of participants was 11 years, and 48% were female. About 6% of the participants had frequent recurrent headaches.

Investigators found that meal regularity was inversely associated with frequent headaches (P < .001). In an adjusted model, youth who often ate breakfast and dinner with their families had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who didn’t dine with their families regularly.

“It is possible regular family meals may lead to greater connectedness and communication within the family and better mental health outcomes, which in turn may impact headache frequency,” Dr. Orr noted.

Youth who spent more than 21 hours per week in front of computer screens or with video games had higher odds for frequent headaches (P < .001), but this association did not survive statistical adjustment for demographics or lifestyle factors.

Both mood and anxiety disorders were associated with twice the risk for frequent headaches, and this risk survived adjustment for age, sex, household income, and other lifestyle factors.

In adolescents aged 12-17 years, there was an association between drinking alcohol and frequent headache, with higher alcohol consumption increasing the likelihood of frequent headache. For instance, those who drank once or more per week had three times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001), and those who indulged in binge drinking at least five times per month had five times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001).

Smoking cannabis was also associated with frequent headache in a dose-dependent manner. Daily users had a threefold increased risk for frequent headache vs those who didn’t use cannabis (P < .001).

Similarly, those who smoked or used e-cigarettes daily also had a threefold increased risk for frequent headaches versus nonusers.

One of the study’s limitations was that it didn’t include participants living in foster homes, institutions or on First Nation reserves. Investigators also were not able to determine headache type and did not assess hydration, which can be an important lifestyle factor in headache etiology.
 

Prioritize Questions About Lifestyle?

In an accompanying editorial, Irene Patniyot, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, noted that lifestyle advice is an important part of managing headache disorders in children and youth and questioned whether neurologists should prioritize discussions about lifestyle habits in this patient population. However, she noted, given the heavy demands on neurologists’ time, this may be “idealistic.”

One potential solution may lie in automating electronic questionnaires for inclusion in patients’ medical records. “Data extraction from electronic questionnaires has already led to new data on symptoms associated with headache in youth and can potentially lead to earlier identification and treatment of mental health disorders and lifestyle habits that negatively affect headache burden and overall well-being,” Dr. Patniyot wrote.

The study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Statistics Canada. Dr. Orr reported receiving royalties from Cambridge University Press; serving on the editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation; and receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — Top-line results of two phase 3 trials evaluating the BTK inhibitor evobrutinib for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) were negative when released several months ago, but the hope for a signal of benefit on secondary endpoints was dashed when the full results of the trials were presented at the 2024 Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum.

Based on prior drug development, including the promise seen in a phase 2 trial, “these negative results were quite disappointing,” reported Xavier Montalban, MD, director, department of neurology, Catalunya Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Hospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.

In the evolutionRMS1 and 2 phase 3 trials, 2285 relapsing-remitting MS patients with active disease were randomized to 45 mg of twice-daily oral evobrutinib or 14 mg once-daily teriflunomide, a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor already widely used for the treatment of MS. The trial, conducted in 52 countries, was double-blind and double-dummy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

No Outcome Supported an Evobrutinib Advantage

Numerically, the mean number of T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions was greater among those randomized to evobrutinib while the mean number of new or enlarging T2 lesions was lower. However, none of these differences in either study reached statistical significance.

The lower serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels were significant (P = .032) in one of the two trials, but the difference was modest, and Dr. Montalban stated that the difference “was probably not clinically significant.”

Almost all of the patients had multiple relapses before being enrolled in the study, but only 36.5% had received a prior disease-modifying therapy. According to Dr. Montalban, the baseline characteristics of the patients enrolled were “nothing special,” in that they were very much “like the types of patients enrolled in trials like these.”

In general, both drugs were well tolerated with a comparable safety profile. The exception was a greater proportion of patients randomized to evobrutinib who developed elevated liver function tests, including a greater proportion with a level at least 5 times the upper limit of normal. All normalized after treatment was discontinued.

This is the first phase 3 trial of a BTK inhibitor in MS, according to Dr. Montalban, who pointed out that evobrutinib did perform as well as a highly active agent, even if it could not show superiority.

There is limited likelihood that further ongoing analyses will uncover meaningful activity not detected in the primary and secondary outcomes, but Dr. Montalban said that there is a possibility that a higher dose or a BTK inhibitor with different characteristics might still produce the types of clinical benefits hypothesized in this initial trial.

Asked to speculate about the results if the RM1 and RM2 trials had a noninferiority rather than a superiority design been employed, Dr. Montalban said that evobrutinib relative to teriflunomide appears to be “similar but more toxic.”

The recent excitement building for the potential of BTK inhibitors in MS was not helped by a second, but much smaller, late-breaker study that evaluated tolebrutinib. The primary endpoint of that study, conducted with just seven patients, was complete resolution of paramagnetic rim lesions (PRL), a prognostically important composition of macrophages, microglia, and iron seen in the central nervous system (CNS) on imaging.
 

No Resolution of CNS Lesions

Even after 48 weeks, none of the lesions had resolved, according to Maria I. Gaitán, MD, acting director of the Translational Neuroradiology Unit of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Bethesda, Maryland.

Again, although these findings were disappointing, Dr. Gaitán said there are a number of explanations for the result that do not preclude a benefit from BTK inhibitors in future studies.

“Complete resolution of PRL might be a bar that was too high,” she said, noting that favorable changes in these lesions could have occurred even if the characteristic iron deposits persisted. She also suggested that dosing might not have been optimized to halt or reverse disease activity in the CNS. Like Dr. Montalban, she suggested that BTK inhibitors with different characteristics might succeed where tolebrutinib failed.

Dr. Freedman, current president of ACTRIMS, agreed that these data should not be interpreted as ruling out a clinical role for BTK inhibitors. Pointing to the substantial body of data supporting this mechanism for reversing inflammation in the CNS, he declared that “the story is not over.”

Dr. Montalban reported financial relationships with Actelion, Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Hoffman La Roche, Immunic, Janssen, Mylan, NervGen, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, TG Therapeutics, and Merck, which provided funding for the RMS 1 and 2 trials. Dr. Freedman reported financial relationships with Actelion, Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Hoffman La Roche, Merck, Novartis, and Teva Canada Innovation. Dr. Gaitán reported no potential conflicts of interest.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — Top-line results of two phase 3 trials evaluating the BTK inhibitor evobrutinib for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) were negative when released several months ago, but the hope for a signal of benefit on secondary endpoints was dashed when the full results of the trials were presented at the 2024 Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum.

Based on prior drug development, including the promise seen in a phase 2 trial, “these negative results were quite disappointing,” reported Xavier Montalban, MD, director, department of neurology, Catalunya Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Hospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.

In the evolutionRMS1 and 2 phase 3 trials, 2285 relapsing-remitting MS patients with active disease were randomized to 45 mg of twice-daily oral evobrutinib or 14 mg once-daily teriflunomide, a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor already widely used for the treatment of MS. The trial, conducted in 52 countries, was double-blind and double-dummy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

No Outcome Supported an Evobrutinib Advantage

Numerically, the mean number of T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions was greater among those randomized to evobrutinib while the mean number of new or enlarging T2 lesions was lower. However, none of these differences in either study reached statistical significance.

The lower serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels were significant (P = .032) in one of the two trials, but the difference was modest, and Dr. Montalban stated that the difference “was probably not clinically significant.”

Almost all of the patients had multiple relapses before being enrolled in the study, but only 36.5% had received a prior disease-modifying therapy. According to Dr. Montalban, the baseline characteristics of the patients enrolled were “nothing special,” in that they were very much “like the types of patients enrolled in trials like these.”

In general, both drugs were well tolerated with a comparable safety profile. The exception was a greater proportion of patients randomized to evobrutinib who developed elevated liver function tests, including a greater proportion with a level at least 5 times the upper limit of normal. All normalized after treatment was discontinued.

This is the first phase 3 trial of a BTK inhibitor in MS, according to Dr. Montalban, who pointed out that evobrutinib did perform as well as a highly active agent, even if it could not show superiority.

There is limited likelihood that further ongoing analyses will uncover meaningful activity not detected in the primary and secondary outcomes, but Dr. Montalban said that there is a possibility that a higher dose or a BTK inhibitor with different characteristics might still produce the types of clinical benefits hypothesized in this initial trial.

Asked to speculate about the results if the RM1 and RM2 trials had a noninferiority rather than a superiority design been employed, Dr. Montalban said that evobrutinib relative to teriflunomide appears to be “similar but more toxic.”

The recent excitement building for the potential of BTK inhibitors in MS was not helped by a second, but much smaller, late-breaker study that evaluated tolebrutinib. The primary endpoint of that study, conducted with just seven patients, was complete resolution of paramagnetic rim lesions (PRL), a prognostically important composition of macrophages, microglia, and iron seen in the central nervous system (CNS) on imaging.
 

No Resolution of CNS Lesions

Even after 48 weeks, none of the lesions had resolved, according to Maria I. Gaitán, MD, acting director of the Translational Neuroradiology Unit of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Bethesda, Maryland.

Again, although these findings were disappointing, Dr. Gaitán said there are a number of explanations for the result that do not preclude a benefit from BTK inhibitors in future studies.

“Complete resolution of PRL might be a bar that was too high,” she said, noting that favorable changes in these lesions could have occurred even if the characteristic iron deposits persisted. She also suggested that dosing might not have been optimized to halt or reverse disease activity in the CNS. Like Dr. Montalban, she suggested that BTK inhibitors with different characteristics might succeed where tolebrutinib failed.

Dr. Freedman, current president of ACTRIMS, agreed that these data should not be interpreted as ruling out a clinical role for BTK inhibitors. Pointing to the substantial body of data supporting this mechanism for reversing inflammation in the CNS, he declared that “the story is not over.”

Dr. Montalban reported financial relationships with Actelion, Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Hoffman La Roche, Immunic, Janssen, Mylan, NervGen, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, TG Therapeutics, and Merck, which provided funding for the RMS 1 and 2 trials. Dr. Freedman reported financial relationships with Actelion, Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Hoffman La Roche, Merck, Novartis, and Teva Canada Innovation. Dr. Gaitán reported no potential conflicts of interest.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — Top-line results of two phase 3 trials evaluating the BTK inhibitor evobrutinib for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) were negative when released several months ago, but the hope for a signal of benefit on secondary endpoints was dashed when the full results of the trials were presented at the 2024 Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum.

Based on prior drug development, including the promise seen in a phase 2 trial, “these negative results were quite disappointing,” reported Xavier Montalban, MD, director, department of neurology, Catalunya Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Hospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.

In the evolutionRMS1 and 2 phase 3 trials, 2285 relapsing-remitting MS patients with active disease were randomized to 45 mg of twice-daily oral evobrutinib or 14 mg once-daily teriflunomide, a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor already widely used for the treatment of MS. The trial, conducted in 52 countries, was double-blind and double-dummy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

No Outcome Supported an Evobrutinib Advantage

Numerically, the mean number of T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions was greater among those randomized to evobrutinib while the mean number of new or enlarging T2 lesions was lower. However, none of these differences in either study reached statistical significance.

The lower serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels were significant (P = .032) in one of the two trials, but the difference was modest, and Dr. Montalban stated that the difference “was probably not clinically significant.”

Almost all of the patients had multiple relapses before being enrolled in the study, but only 36.5% had received a prior disease-modifying therapy. According to Dr. Montalban, the baseline characteristics of the patients enrolled were “nothing special,” in that they were very much “like the types of patients enrolled in trials like these.”

In general, both drugs were well tolerated with a comparable safety profile. The exception was a greater proportion of patients randomized to evobrutinib who developed elevated liver function tests, including a greater proportion with a level at least 5 times the upper limit of normal. All normalized after treatment was discontinued.

This is the first phase 3 trial of a BTK inhibitor in MS, according to Dr. Montalban, who pointed out that evobrutinib did perform as well as a highly active agent, even if it could not show superiority.

There is limited likelihood that further ongoing analyses will uncover meaningful activity not detected in the primary and secondary outcomes, but Dr. Montalban said that there is a possibility that a higher dose or a BTK inhibitor with different characteristics might still produce the types of clinical benefits hypothesized in this initial trial.

Asked to speculate about the results if the RM1 and RM2 trials had a noninferiority rather than a superiority design been employed, Dr. Montalban said that evobrutinib relative to teriflunomide appears to be “similar but more toxic.”

The recent excitement building for the potential of BTK inhibitors in MS was not helped by a second, but much smaller, late-breaker study that evaluated tolebrutinib. The primary endpoint of that study, conducted with just seven patients, was complete resolution of paramagnetic rim lesions (PRL), a prognostically important composition of macrophages, microglia, and iron seen in the central nervous system (CNS) on imaging.
 

No Resolution of CNS Lesions

Even after 48 weeks, none of the lesions had resolved, according to Maria I. Gaitán, MD, acting director of the Translational Neuroradiology Unit of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Bethesda, Maryland.

Again, although these findings were disappointing, Dr. Gaitán said there are a number of explanations for the result that do not preclude a benefit from BTK inhibitors in future studies.

“Complete resolution of PRL might be a bar that was too high,” she said, noting that favorable changes in these lesions could have occurred even if the characteristic iron deposits persisted. She also suggested that dosing might not have been optimized to halt or reverse disease activity in the CNS. Like Dr. Montalban, she suggested that BTK inhibitors with different characteristics might succeed where tolebrutinib failed.

Dr. Freedman, current president of ACTRIMS, agreed that these data should not be interpreted as ruling out a clinical role for BTK inhibitors. Pointing to the substantial body of data supporting this mechanism for reversing inflammation in the CNS, he declared that “the story is not over.”

Dr. Montalban reported financial relationships with Actelion, Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Hoffman La Roche, Immunic, Janssen, Mylan, NervGen, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, TG Therapeutics, and Merck, which provided funding for the RMS 1 and 2 trials. Dr. Freedman reported financial relationships with Actelion, Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Hoffman La Roche, Merck, Novartis, and Teva Canada Innovation. Dr. Gaitán reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Epilepsy was linked to a significantly increased the risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19 early in the pandemic, while healthcare utilization rates in this patient population declined, data from two linked studies showed. 

Results showed that individuals with epilepsy had a 60% higher risk for hospitalization and a 33% higher risk of dying from COVID-19 than those without the disorder. However, during the pandemic, the number of hospitalizations and ER visits by people with epilepsy dropped by as much as 30%. 

“The neurotropic effects of Sars-CoV-2 might explain some of this increased risk for people with epilepsy, or epilepsy might be associated with alterations in the immune system, predisposing to more severe COVID-19,” wrote the investigators, led by Owen Pickrell, MBBChirm, PhD, Swansea University, United Kingdom.

The findings were published online March 5 in Epilepsia. 
 

Skill Shifting 

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions and affects approximately 50 million people worldwide, with significant comorbidity and an increased risk for early death.

During the pandemic, clinicians treating people with epilepsy and other conditions shifted their skills to treat an ever-increasing number of patients with COVID-19, which may have hindered epilepsy-specific services for a time.

To further explore how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the health of this patient population, researchers analyzed health records from a large database with information about hospital admissions, primary care visits, COVID-19 vaccination status, and demographics of 90% of Welsh residents.

Those living with epilepsy before or during the study period (March 1, 2020, to June 31, 2021) were identified and compared with controls without epilepsy. 

The analysis included approximately 27,280 people with epilepsy and 136,400 matched controls. Among those with epilepsy, there were 158 deaths (0.58%) and 933 hospitalizations (3.4%). In comparison, there were 370 deaths (0.27%) and 1871 hospitalizations (1.4%) in the control group.

Unadjusted analyses showed the risk of dying from COVID-19 for those with epilepsy vs controls was more than twofold higher (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI; 1.78-2.59) and the increase in the risk for hospitalization was similar (HR, 2.15; 95% CI; 1.94-2.37). 

After adjusting for 40 comorbidities, including serious mental illness, asthma, and diabetes, those with epilepsy had a 60% increased risk for hospitalization (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.60) and a 33% increased risk for death (aHR, 1.33) than those without epilepsy (all P < .0001). 

The findings “may have implications for prioritizing future COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations for people with epilepsy,” the investigators wrote.

Study limitations included the inability to account for the effect of vaccinations or prior infections with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the study did not account for geographical or temporal variations in prevalence and COVID-19 variants. 
 

Consultations Canceled 

In the related study, researchers analyzed healthcare utilization by people with epilepsy before and after the pandemic using the same database. Results showed hospital admissions, ER visits, and outpatient visits significantly decreased during the pandemic. 

In the year before the pandemic, people with epilepsy had double the rate of ER visits (rate ratio [RR], 2.36), hospital admissions (RR, 2.08), and outpatient appointments (RR, 1.92) compared with matched controls. 

However, during the pandemic there was a greater reduction in hospital admissions (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.69-0.72) and ER visits (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.70) in those with epilepsy versus matched controls (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83) as well as hospital visits and ER visits (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86-0.88; all P < .0001). New epilepsy diagnoses also decreased during the pandemic (RR, 0.73; P < .0001)

The redeployment of epileptologists during the pandemic also meant that epilepsy consultations and investigations were canceled, making it harder for people with epilepsy to access specialty care, the researchers noted. 

“Our research also showed that there were fewer new diagnoses of epilepsy and fewer contacts with health services by people with epilepsy, during the period we examined,” Huw Strafford, lead data analyst for the studies, said in a release.

Both studies were funded by Health and Care Research Wales. Dr. Pickrell reported receiving speaker fees from UCB Pharma and Angelini Pharma, travel grants from Angelini Pharma, and an unrestricted grant from UCB Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Epilepsy was linked to a significantly increased the risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19 early in the pandemic, while healthcare utilization rates in this patient population declined, data from two linked studies showed. 

Results showed that individuals with epilepsy had a 60% higher risk for hospitalization and a 33% higher risk of dying from COVID-19 than those without the disorder. However, during the pandemic, the number of hospitalizations and ER visits by people with epilepsy dropped by as much as 30%. 

“The neurotropic effects of Sars-CoV-2 might explain some of this increased risk for people with epilepsy, or epilepsy might be associated with alterations in the immune system, predisposing to more severe COVID-19,” wrote the investigators, led by Owen Pickrell, MBBChirm, PhD, Swansea University, United Kingdom.

The findings were published online March 5 in Epilepsia. 
 

Skill Shifting 

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions and affects approximately 50 million people worldwide, with significant comorbidity and an increased risk for early death.

During the pandemic, clinicians treating people with epilepsy and other conditions shifted their skills to treat an ever-increasing number of patients with COVID-19, which may have hindered epilepsy-specific services for a time.

To further explore how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the health of this patient population, researchers analyzed health records from a large database with information about hospital admissions, primary care visits, COVID-19 vaccination status, and demographics of 90% of Welsh residents.

Those living with epilepsy before or during the study period (March 1, 2020, to June 31, 2021) were identified and compared with controls without epilepsy. 

The analysis included approximately 27,280 people with epilepsy and 136,400 matched controls. Among those with epilepsy, there were 158 deaths (0.58%) and 933 hospitalizations (3.4%). In comparison, there were 370 deaths (0.27%) and 1871 hospitalizations (1.4%) in the control group.

Unadjusted analyses showed the risk of dying from COVID-19 for those with epilepsy vs controls was more than twofold higher (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI; 1.78-2.59) and the increase in the risk for hospitalization was similar (HR, 2.15; 95% CI; 1.94-2.37). 

After adjusting for 40 comorbidities, including serious mental illness, asthma, and diabetes, those with epilepsy had a 60% increased risk for hospitalization (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.60) and a 33% increased risk for death (aHR, 1.33) than those without epilepsy (all P < .0001). 

The findings “may have implications for prioritizing future COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations for people with epilepsy,” the investigators wrote.

Study limitations included the inability to account for the effect of vaccinations or prior infections with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the study did not account for geographical or temporal variations in prevalence and COVID-19 variants. 
 

Consultations Canceled 

In the related study, researchers analyzed healthcare utilization by people with epilepsy before and after the pandemic using the same database. Results showed hospital admissions, ER visits, and outpatient visits significantly decreased during the pandemic. 

In the year before the pandemic, people with epilepsy had double the rate of ER visits (rate ratio [RR], 2.36), hospital admissions (RR, 2.08), and outpatient appointments (RR, 1.92) compared with matched controls. 

However, during the pandemic there was a greater reduction in hospital admissions (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.69-0.72) and ER visits (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.70) in those with epilepsy versus matched controls (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83) as well as hospital visits and ER visits (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86-0.88; all P < .0001). New epilepsy diagnoses also decreased during the pandemic (RR, 0.73; P < .0001)

The redeployment of epileptologists during the pandemic also meant that epilepsy consultations and investigations were canceled, making it harder for people with epilepsy to access specialty care, the researchers noted. 

“Our research also showed that there were fewer new diagnoses of epilepsy and fewer contacts with health services by people with epilepsy, during the period we examined,” Huw Strafford, lead data analyst for the studies, said in a release.

Both studies were funded by Health and Care Research Wales. Dr. Pickrell reported receiving speaker fees from UCB Pharma and Angelini Pharma, travel grants from Angelini Pharma, and an unrestricted grant from UCB Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Epilepsy was linked to a significantly increased the risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19 early in the pandemic, while healthcare utilization rates in this patient population declined, data from two linked studies showed. 

Results showed that individuals with epilepsy had a 60% higher risk for hospitalization and a 33% higher risk of dying from COVID-19 than those without the disorder. However, during the pandemic, the number of hospitalizations and ER visits by people with epilepsy dropped by as much as 30%. 

“The neurotropic effects of Sars-CoV-2 might explain some of this increased risk for people with epilepsy, or epilepsy might be associated with alterations in the immune system, predisposing to more severe COVID-19,” wrote the investigators, led by Owen Pickrell, MBBChirm, PhD, Swansea University, United Kingdom.

The findings were published online March 5 in Epilepsia. 
 

Skill Shifting 

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions and affects approximately 50 million people worldwide, with significant comorbidity and an increased risk for early death.

During the pandemic, clinicians treating people with epilepsy and other conditions shifted their skills to treat an ever-increasing number of patients with COVID-19, which may have hindered epilepsy-specific services for a time.

To further explore how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the health of this patient population, researchers analyzed health records from a large database with information about hospital admissions, primary care visits, COVID-19 vaccination status, and demographics of 90% of Welsh residents.

Those living with epilepsy before or during the study period (March 1, 2020, to June 31, 2021) were identified and compared with controls without epilepsy. 

The analysis included approximately 27,280 people with epilepsy and 136,400 matched controls. Among those with epilepsy, there were 158 deaths (0.58%) and 933 hospitalizations (3.4%). In comparison, there were 370 deaths (0.27%) and 1871 hospitalizations (1.4%) in the control group.

Unadjusted analyses showed the risk of dying from COVID-19 for those with epilepsy vs controls was more than twofold higher (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI; 1.78-2.59) and the increase in the risk for hospitalization was similar (HR, 2.15; 95% CI; 1.94-2.37). 

After adjusting for 40 comorbidities, including serious mental illness, asthma, and diabetes, those with epilepsy had a 60% increased risk for hospitalization (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.60) and a 33% increased risk for death (aHR, 1.33) than those without epilepsy (all P < .0001). 

The findings “may have implications for prioritizing future COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations for people with epilepsy,” the investigators wrote.

Study limitations included the inability to account for the effect of vaccinations or prior infections with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the study did not account for geographical or temporal variations in prevalence and COVID-19 variants. 
 

Consultations Canceled 

In the related study, researchers analyzed healthcare utilization by people with epilepsy before and after the pandemic using the same database. Results showed hospital admissions, ER visits, and outpatient visits significantly decreased during the pandemic. 

In the year before the pandemic, people with epilepsy had double the rate of ER visits (rate ratio [RR], 2.36), hospital admissions (RR, 2.08), and outpatient appointments (RR, 1.92) compared with matched controls. 

However, during the pandemic there was a greater reduction in hospital admissions (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.69-0.72) and ER visits (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.70) in those with epilepsy versus matched controls (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83) as well as hospital visits and ER visits (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86-0.88; all P < .0001). New epilepsy diagnoses also decreased during the pandemic (RR, 0.73; P < .0001)

The redeployment of epileptologists during the pandemic also meant that epilepsy consultations and investigations were canceled, making it harder for people with epilepsy to access specialty care, the researchers noted. 

“Our research also showed that there were fewer new diagnoses of epilepsy and fewer contacts with health services by people with epilepsy, during the period we examined,” Huw Strafford, lead data analyst for the studies, said in a release.

Both studies were funded by Health and Care Research Wales. Dr. Pickrell reported receiving speaker fees from UCB Pharma and Angelini Pharma, travel grants from Angelini Pharma, and an unrestricted grant from UCB Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, and other neurological conditions are now the leading cause of health loss and disability around the world, affecting nearly half of the world’s population, a new comprehensive analysis showed.

In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.

Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.

“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release. 

The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
 

The Top 10

The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.

Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.

In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.

The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.

“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.

The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.

Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.

“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.

“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
 

Prioritize Prevention

The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.

It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.

“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.

It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”

“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.

In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.

“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, and other neurological conditions are now the leading cause of health loss and disability around the world, affecting nearly half of the world’s population, a new comprehensive analysis showed.

In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.

Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.

“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release. 

The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
 

The Top 10

The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.

Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.

In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.

The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.

“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.

The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.

Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.

“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.

“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
 

Prioritize Prevention

The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.

It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.

“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.

It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”

“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.

In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.

“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, and other neurological conditions are now the leading cause of health loss and disability around the world, affecting nearly half of the world’s population, a new comprehensive analysis showed.

In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.

Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.

“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release. 

The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
 

The Top 10

The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.

Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.

In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.

The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.

“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.

The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.

Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.

“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.

“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
 

Prioritize Prevention

The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.

It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.

“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.

It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”

“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.

In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.

“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

They have gone by many different names over the centuries: hysteria, psychosomatic illnesses, psychogenic neurological disorders, conversion disorders, dissociative neurological symptom disorders. The terminology may change, but functional neurological disorders by any other name are still real and serious yet treatable phenomena.

Functional neurological disorders, or FNDs, live at the crossroads of neurology and psychiatry, and they are as much a product of the body as they are of the brain, say neurologists who specialize in treating these complex and clinically challenging conditions.

“Whether they’re easily recognized or not depends on someone’s training and experience in this regard,” said Mark Hallett, MD, of the Human Motor Control Section of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland.

“The difficulty has been that there hasn’t been very good education about functional disorders over the last 50 years or so,” he said in an interview.

However, with training and experience, clinicians can learn to identify these common and disabling conditions, Dr. Hallett said.
 

Varying Definitions

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5) labels FND as “conversion disorder,” and lists diagnostic criteria that include “one or more symptoms of altered voluntary motor or sensory function; clinical findings provide evidence of incompatibility between the symptom and recognized neurological or medical conditions; the symptom or deficit is not better explained by another medical or mental disorder;” and “the symptom or deficit causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning or warrants medical evaluation.”

Dr. Hallett offers his own definition of FND, which includes the following characteristics:

• A neurological disorder, characterized by almost any type of neurological symptom
• Not voluntarily produced
• Caused by a brain network dysfunction that does not exclude the possibility of normal function
• Sometimes due in part to a psychological cause, and not explained by other neurological pathology that may or may not be present
• Symptoms may be inconsistent (variable) or incompatible (incongruent) with other known neurological disorders or human anatomy and physiology.

The two most common types of FND are psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and functional movement disorders, but patients may also have functional sensory, visual, auditory, speech, and urologic disorders, and even functional coma.

Dr. Hallett cited studies showing that an estimated 9% of neurology hospital admission are for FNDS, and that among patients in neurology clinics 5.4% had a diagnosis of FND, and 30% had an FND as part of the diagnosis.

Women comprise between 60% and 75% of the population with FNDs.
 

Diagnosis

FND is not, as once thought, a diagnosis of exclusion, but is based on signs and symptoms, which may be either inconsistent or irreversible and may occur in the absence of a stressor, said Sara Finkelstein, MD, MSc, of the Functional Neurological Disorder Unit in the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

She emphasized that there are several diagnostic pitfalls that clinicians need to be aware of.

For example, “just because a patient has a psychiatric history does not mean that they have a functional neurological disorder,” she said in an interview.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Functional seizures

A definitive diagnosis can depend on the type of disorder.

“Many functional seizures have some clinical manifestations that are apparent, but as seizures are intermittent the doctor may not see one, and it may depend upon someone taking a video of the person with the seizure perhaps, or bringing them into a hospital and watching them until they do have the seizure,” Dr. Hallett said.

There are some manifestations that indicate the likelihood that a seizure has a functional origin, and when there is uncertainty EEG can help to nail down a diagnosis, he added.

Dr. Finkelstein noted that exam signs with good reliability for functional seizures include eye closure or resistance to opening; duration longer than 2 minutes; stopping and starting; asynchronous limb movements; patient maintenance of awareness during a generalized event; and ictal weeping.

Differential diagnoses included migraine with complex aura, dissociation related to posttraumatic stress disorder, or anxiety.
 

Functional movement disorders

Dr. Finkelstein cautioned that when evaluating patients for potential functional movement disorders, it’s important to not jump to conclusions.

For example, the amplitude of tremor can vary in Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor as well as in functional tremor. The clinician should not read too much into the observation that a patient’s tremor gets worse with increasing stress as stress can exacerbate most tremor types, she said.

One sign that tremor could be functional (dystonic tremor) is irregularity of amplitude and frequency, she noted.

When assessing patients with gait disorder, it’s important to understand that there is no single sign that is specially characteristic for a given disorder, and just because a patient has a “bizarre” gait, it doesn’t necessarily signal a functional disorder.

“A dystonic gait may improve with an alternate motor pattern or be inconsistent over time,” Dr. Finkelstein said.
 

Treatment

In a comprehensive review published in The Lancet: Neurology in 2022, Dr. Hallett and colleagues said that good doctor-patient communications and understanding of each patient’s needs and goals are essential for effective treatment of all FNDs.

“Neurologists have traditionally avoided taking responsibility for people with FND, although are often most appropriate to engage patients in treatment. Explaining the diagnosis with clarity, confidence, using the principles of a ‘rule in’ process, is a key step in treatment,” they wrote.

Treatment can take several forms, depending on the FND, and may include physiotherapy for patients with functional movement disorders and psychological therapy for patients with functional seizures.

“With increasing evidence-based treatment, the diagnosis of FND should be seen as a process of looking for potentially reversible cause of disability and distress whether or not an individual has abnormalities on conventional laboratory or radiological testing,” Dr. Hallett and colleagues concluded.

This article was based on interviews and from presentations by Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein at a 2023 meeting of the Indiana Neurological Society. Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein declared no conflicts of interest.

They have gone by many different names over the centuries: hysteria, psychosomatic illnesses, psychogenic neurological disorders, conversion disorders, dissociative neurological symptom disorders. The terminology may change, but functional neurological disorders by any other name are still real and serious yet treatable phenomena.

Functional neurological disorders, or FNDs, live at the crossroads of neurology and psychiatry, and they are as much a product of the body as they are of the brain, say neurologists who specialize in treating these complex and clinically challenging conditions.

“Whether they’re easily recognized or not depends on someone’s training and experience in this regard,” said Mark Hallett, MD, of the Human Motor Control Section of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland.

“The difficulty has been that there hasn’t been very good education about functional disorders over the last 50 years or so,” he said in an interview.

However, with training and experience, clinicians can learn to identify these common and disabling conditions, Dr. Hallett said.
 

Varying Definitions

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5) labels FND as “conversion disorder,” and lists diagnostic criteria that include “one or more symptoms of altered voluntary motor or sensory function; clinical findings provide evidence of incompatibility between the symptom and recognized neurological or medical conditions; the symptom or deficit is not better explained by another medical or mental disorder;” and “the symptom or deficit causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning or warrants medical evaluation.”

Dr. Hallett offers his own definition of FND, which includes the following characteristics:

• A neurological disorder, characterized by almost any type of neurological symptom
• Not voluntarily produced
• Caused by a brain network dysfunction that does not exclude the possibility of normal function
• Sometimes due in part to a psychological cause, and not explained by other neurological pathology that may or may not be present
• Symptoms may be inconsistent (variable) or incompatible (incongruent) with other known neurological disorders or human anatomy and physiology.

The two most common types of FND are psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and functional movement disorders, but patients may also have functional sensory, visual, auditory, speech, and urologic disorders, and even functional coma.

Dr. Hallett cited studies showing that an estimated 9% of neurology hospital admission are for FNDS, and that among patients in neurology clinics 5.4% had a diagnosis of FND, and 30% had an FND as part of the diagnosis.

Women comprise between 60% and 75% of the population with FNDs.
 

Diagnosis

FND is not, as once thought, a diagnosis of exclusion, but is based on signs and symptoms, which may be either inconsistent or irreversible and may occur in the absence of a stressor, said Sara Finkelstein, MD, MSc, of the Functional Neurological Disorder Unit in the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

She emphasized that there are several diagnostic pitfalls that clinicians need to be aware of.

For example, “just because a patient has a psychiatric history does not mean that they have a functional neurological disorder,” she said in an interview.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Functional seizures

A definitive diagnosis can depend on the type of disorder.

“Many functional seizures have some clinical manifestations that are apparent, but as seizures are intermittent the doctor may not see one, and it may depend upon someone taking a video of the person with the seizure perhaps, or bringing them into a hospital and watching them until they do have the seizure,” Dr. Hallett said.

There are some manifestations that indicate the likelihood that a seizure has a functional origin, and when there is uncertainty EEG can help to nail down a diagnosis, he added.

Dr. Finkelstein noted that exam signs with good reliability for functional seizures include eye closure or resistance to opening; duration longer than 2 minutes; stopping and starting; asynchronous limb movements; patient maintenance of awareness during a generalized event; and ictal weeping.

Differential diagnoses included migraine with complex aura, dissociation related to posttraumatic stress disorder, or anxiety.
 

Functional movement disorders

Dr. Finkelstein cautioned that when evaluating patients for potential functional movement disorders, it’s important to not jump to conclusions.

For example, the amplitude of tremor can vary in Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor as well as in functional tremor. The clinician should not read too much into the observation that a patient’s tremor gets worse with increasing stress as stress can exacerbate most tremor types, she said.

One sign that tremor could be functional (dystonic tremor) is irregularity of amplitude and frequency, she noted.

When assessing patients with gait disorder, it’s important to understand that there is no single sign that is specially characteristic for a given disorder, and just because a patient has a “bizarre” gait, it doesn’t necessarily signal a functional disorder.

“A dystonic gait may improve with an alternate motor pattern or be inconsistent over time,” Dr. Finkelstein said.
 

Treatment

In a comprehensive review published in The Lancet: Neurology in 2022, Dr. Hallett and colleagues said that good doctor-patient communications and understanding of each patient’s needs and goals are essential for effective treatment of all FNDs.

“Neurologists have traditionally avoided taking responsibility for people with FND, although are often most appropriate to engage patients in treatment. Explaining the diagnosis with clarity, confidence, using the principles of a ‘rule in’ process, is a key step in treatment,” they wrote.

Treatment can take several forms, depending on the FND, and may include physiotherapy for patients with functional movement disorders and psychological therapy for patients with functional seizures.

“With increasing evidence-based treatment, the diagnosis of FND should be seen as a process of looking for potentially reversible cause of disability and distress whether or not an individual has abnormalities on conventional laboratory or radiological testing,” Dr. Hallett and colleagues concluded.

This article was based on interviews and from presentations by Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein at a 2023 meeting of the Indiana Neurological Society. Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein declared no conflicts of interest.

They have gone by many different names over the centuries: hysteria, psychosomatic illnesses, psychogenic neurological disorders, conversion disorders, dissociative neurological symptom disorders. The terminology may change, but functional neurological disorders by any other name are still real and serious yet treatable phenomena.

Functional neurological disorders, or FNDs, live at the crossroads of neurology and psychiatry, and they are as much a product of the body as they are of the brain, say neurologists who specialize in treating these complex and clinically challenging conditions.

“Whether they’re easily recognized or not depends on someone’s training and experience in this regard,” said Mark Hallett, MD, of the Human Motor Control Section of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland.

“The difficulty has been that there hasn’t been very good education about functional disorders over the last 50 years or so,” he said in an interview.

However, with training and experience, clinicians can learn to identify these common and disabling conditions, Dr. Hallett said.
 

Varying Definitions

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5) labels FND as “conversion disorder,” and lists diagnostic criteria that include “one or more symptoms of altered voluntary motor or sensory function; clinical findings provide evidence of incompatibility between the symptom and recognized neurological or medical conditions; the symptom or deficit is not better explained by another medical or mental disorder;” and “the symptom or deficit causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning or warrants medical evaluation.”

Dr. Hallett offers his own definition of FND, which includes the following characteristics:

• A neurological disorder, characterized by almost any type of neurological symptom
• Not voluntarily produced
• Caused by a brain network dysfunction that does not exclude the possibility of normal function
• Sometimes due in part to a psychological cause, and not explained by other neurological pathology that may or may not be present
• Symptoms may be inconsistent (variable) or incompatible (incongruent) with other known neurological disorders or human anatomy and physiology.

The two most common types of FND are psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and functional movement disorders, but patients may also have functional sensory, visual, auditory, speech, and urologic disorders, and even functional coma.

Dr. Hallett cited studies showing that an estimated 9% of neurology hospital admission are for FNDS, and that among patients in neurology clinics 5.4% had a diagnosis of FND, and 30% had an FND as part of the diagnosis.

Women comprise between 60% and 75% of the population with FNDs.
 

Diagnosis

FND is not, as once thought, a diagnosis of exclusion, but is based on signs and symptoms, which may be either inconsistent or irreversible and may occur in the absence of a stressor, said Sara Finkelstein, MD, MSc, of the Functional Neurological Disorder Unit in the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

She emphasized that there are several diagnostic pitfalls that clinicians need to be aware of.

For example, “just because a patient has a psychiatric history does not mean that they have a functional neurological disorder,” she said in an interview.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Functional seizures

A definitive diagnosis can depend on the type of disorder.

“Many functional seizures have some clinical manifestations that are apparent, but as seizures are intermittent the doctor may not see one, and it may depend upon someone taking a video of the person with the seizure perhaps, or bringing them into a hospital and watching them until they do have the seizure,” Dr. Hallett said.

There are some manifestations that indicate the likelihood that a seizure has a functional origin, and when there is uncertainty EEG can help to nail down a diagnosis, he added.

Dr. Finkelstein noted that exam signs with good reliability for functional seizures include eye closure or resistance to opening; duration longer than 2 minutes; stopping and starting; asynchronous limb movements; patient maintenance of awareness during a generalized event; and ictal weeping.

Differential diagnoses included migraine with complex aura, dissociation related to posttraumatic stress disorder, or anxiety.
 

Functional movement disorders

Dr. Finkelstein cautioned that when evaluating patients for potential functional movement disorders, it’s important to not jump to conclusions.

For example, the amplitude of tremor can vary in Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor as well as in functional tremor. The clinician should not read too much into the observation that a patient’s tremor gets worse with increasing stress as stress can exacerbate most tremor types, she said.

One sign that tremor could be functional (dystonic tremor) is irregularity of amplitude and frequency, she noted.

When assessing patients with gait disorder, it’s important to understand that there is no single sign that is specially characteristic for a given disorder, and just because a patient has a “bizarre” gait, it doesn’t necessarily signal a functional disorder.

“A dystonic gait may improve with an alternate motor pattern or be inconsistent over time,” Dr. Finkelstein said.
 

Treatment

In a comprehensive review published in The Lancet: Neurology in 2022, Dr. Hallett and colleagues said that good doctor-patient communications and understanding of each patient’s needs and goals are essential for effective treatment of all FNDs.

“Neurologists have traditionally avoided taking responsibility for people with FND, although are often most appropriate to engage patients in treatment. Explaining the diagnosis with clarity, confidence, using the principles of a ‘rule in’ process, is a key step in treatment,” they wrote.

Treatment can take several forms, depending on the FND, and may include physiotherapy for patients with functional movement disorders and psychological therapy for patients with functional seizures.

“With increasing evidence-based treatment, the diagnosis of FND should be seen as a process of looking for potentially reversible cause of disability and distress whether or not an individual has abnormalities on conventional laboratory or radiological testing,” Dr. Hallett and colleagues concluded.

This article was based on interviews and from presentations by Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein at a 2023 meeting of the Indiana Neurological Society. Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein declared no conflicts of interest.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — In an interim analysis of an extension study, intrathecal injection of autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) has been associated with favorable effects on both symptoms and biomarkers in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to data presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

After at least 1 year of follow-up in 23 patients participating in the extension analysis, “there has been favorable effects on cognitive function, neurological functional tests, quality of life, and both of two major biomarkers linked to neurodegeneration,” reported Dimitrios Karussis, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem.

Based on promising preclinical studies, the initial clinical study with MSCs was published in Brain in 2020. In that study, 48 participants were randomized to receive an intrathecal injection of MSCs, an intravenous injection of MSCs, or a sham injection. The MSCs were collected from the bone marrow of each participant and cultured.

A second injection in the active treatment groups was administered at 6 months. At this time, those initially randomized to a sham injection received either an intrathecal or an IV injection of MSCs harvested from their bone marrow.
 

No Disease Activity Seen in 60% at 1 Year

When evaluated at the end of 1 year, there was no evidence of disease activity in 58.6% of those receiving the two intrathecal injections of MSCs, 40.6% of those receiving two IV injections of MSCs, and 9.7% of those initially randomized to the sham group. The intrathecal injection of MSCs, which was well tolerated, appeared to offer greater efficacy and was associated with relative benefits on multiple additional measures, including reduced T2 lesion load, lower relapse rates, and sustained cognitive function.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Forty of the patients in the initial study were enrolled in the extension. In the late-breaker presentation, Dr. Karussis provided interim results on 23, of which all had been followed for at least another additional year. These patients had been treated with one to three intrathecal injects of MSCs at intervals of 3 to 6 months.

Of further gains during the extension, Dr. Karussis described gains in cognitive function, represented by a 3-degree improvement in the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), a median 17% improvement in the 25-foot walk test, and an improvement in quality of life, captured in domains of both physical and mental function. All of these gains were statistically significant.

The clinical responses were supported by reductions in both serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels and in the glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), which Dr. Karussis described as important biomarkers of disease progression. For sNfL, the reduction was 33.2% (P = .001), and there was further decline observed after repeated MSC injections.

The 22% (P < .0004) reduction in GFAP, which Dr. Karussis said has not been shown before, was observed in all 23 patients. Again, there was an additional reduction with repeated MSC treatments.

The safety and tolerability remained encouraging with longer follow-up. As in the original series, there were no serious adverse events. Headache and backache, which were more common among those receiving intrathecal injections of MSC in the original study, continued to be reported in the extension, but these were time-limited.

Although Dr. Karussis emphasized that these interim results await confirmation with longer follow-up and larger studies, he suggested that the consistency of benefit with early report provides “an additional hint of possible neuroprotective and neurotrophic effects.”
 

Mechanism of MSC Benefit Incompletely Documented

In patients with progressive MS, there is an urgent need for more and better therapies. MSCs, which reside primarily in bone marrow but can be found in other tissues, have been associated with immunomodulatory as well as neuroprotective effects in experimental studies, but whether one or the other or both of these activities are responsible for the clinical benefits observed so far is unresolved.

Others evaluating MSCs in the experimental setting have shown that these “produce a variety of soluble factors with immunomodulatory, neuroprotective, and repair-promoting properties,” said Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Cohen is director of the experimental therapeutics program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Cleveland Clinic. He said that previous experimental work has encouraged clinical studies, including the work presented by Dr. Karussis.

While the late-breaker presentation provided data suggesting “persistent potent efficacy with good safety and tolerability,” Dr. Cohen pointed out that “the results from this group are substantially better than those reported by several other groups.” He called the difference in results “uncertain,” suggesting that more work is needed to prove that clinical benefit is reliably achieved.

“I think it is too early to tell if MSC transplantation is going to be useful. Other than [the data] reported by the Karussis group, the results have been rather disappointing,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Karussis reports no potential conflicts of interest.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — In an interim analysis of an extension study, intrathecal injection of autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) has been associated with favorable effects on both symptoms and biomarkers in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to data presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

After at least 1 year of follow-up in 23 patients participating in the extension analysis, “there has been favorable effects on cognitive function, neurological functional tests, quality of life, and both of two major biomarkers linked to neurodegeneration,” reported Dimitrios Karussis, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem.

Based on promising preclinical studies, the initial clinical study with MSCs was published in Brain in 2020. In that study, 48 participants were randomized to receive an intrathecal injection of MSCs, an intravenous injection of MSCs, or a sham injection. The MSCs were collected from the bone marrow of each participant and cultured.

A second injection in the active treatment groups was administered at 6 months. At this time, those initially randomized to a sham injection received either an intrathecal or an IV injection of MSCs harvested from their bone marrow.
 

No Disease Activity Seen in 60% at 1 Year

When evaluated at the end of 1 year, there was no evidence of disease activity in 58.6% of those receiving the two intrathecal injections of MSCs, 40.6% of those receiving two IV injections of MSCs, and 9.7% of those initially randomized to the sham group. The intrathecal injection of MSCs, which was well tolerated, appeared to offer greater efficacy and was associated with relative benefits on multiple additional measures, including reduced T2 lesion load, lower relapse rates, and sustained cognitive function.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Forty of the patients in the initial study were enrolled in the extension. In the late-breaker presentation, Dr. Karussis provided interim results on 23, of which all had been followed for at least another additional year. These patients had been treated with one to three intrathecal injects of MSCs at intervals of 3 to 6 months.

Of further gains during the extension, Dr. Karussis described gains in cognitive function, represented by a 3-degree improvement in the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), a median 17% improvement in the 25-foot walk test, and an improvement in quality of life, captured in domains of both physical and mental function. All of these gains were statistically significant.

The clinical responses were supported by reductions in both serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels and in the glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), which Dr. Karussis described as important biomarkers of disease progression. For sNfL, the reduction was 33.2% (P = .001), and there was further decline observed after repeated MSC injections.

The 22% (P < .0004) reduction in GFAP, which Dr. Karussis said has not been shown before, was observed in all 23 patients. Again, there was an additional reduction with repeated MSC treatments.

The safety and tolerability remained encouraging with longer follow-up. As in the original series, there were no serious adverse events. Headache and backache, which were more common among those receiving intrathecal injections of MSC in the original study, continued to be reported in the extension, but these were time-limited.

Although Dr. Karussis emphasized that these interim results await confirmation with longer follow-up and larger studies, he suggested that the consistency of benefit with early report provides “an additional hint of possible neuroprotective and neurotrophic effects.”
 

Mechanism of MSC Benefit Incompletely Documented

In patients with progressive MS, there is an urgent need for more and better therapies. MSCs, which reside primarily in bone marrow but can be found in other tissues, have been associated with immunomodulatory as well as neuroprotective effects in experimental studies, but whether one or the other or both of these activities are responsible for the clinical benefits observed so far is unresolved.

Others evaluating MSCs in the experimental setting have shown that these “produce a variety of soluble factors with immunomodulatory, neuroprotective, and repair-promoting properties,” said Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Cohen is director of the experimental therapeutics program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Cleveland Clinic. He said that previous experimental work has encouraged clinical studies, including the work presented by Dr. Karussis.

While the late-breaker presentation provided data suggesting “persistent potent efficacy with good safety and tolerability,” Dr. Cohen pointed out that “the results from this group are substantially better than those reported by several other groups.” He called the difference in results “uncertain,” suggesting that more work is needed to prove that clinical benefit is reliably achieved.

“I think it is too early to tell if MSC transplantation is going to be useful. Other than [the data] reported by the Karussis group, the results have been rather disappointing,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Karussis reports no potential conflicts of interest.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — In an interim analysis of an extension study, intrathecal injection of autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) has been associated with favorable effects on both symptoms and biomarkers in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to data presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

After at least 1 year of follow-up in 23 patients participating in the extension analysis, “there has been favorable effects on cognitive function, neurological functional tests, quality of life, and both of two major biomarkers linked to neurodegeneration,” reported Dimitrios Karussis, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem.

Based on promising preclinical studies, the initial clinical study with MSCs was published in Brain in 2020. In that study, 48 participants were randomized to receive an intrathecal injection of MSCs, an intravenous injection of MSCs, or a sham injection. The MSCs were collected from the bone marrow of each participant and cultured.

A second injection in the active treatment groups was administered at 6 months. At this time, those initially randomized to a sham injection received either an intrathecal or an IV injection of MSCs harvested from their bone marrow.
 

No Disease Activity Seen in 60% at 1 Year

When evaluated at the end of 1 year, there was no evidence of disease activity in 58.6% of those receiving the two intrathecal injections of MSCs, 40.6% of those receiving two IV injections of MSCs, and 9.7% of those initially randomized to the sham group. The intrathecal injection of MSCs, which was well tolerated, appeared to offer greater efficacy and was associated with relative benefits on multiple additional measures, including reduced T2 lesion load, lower relapse rates, and sustained cognitive function.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Forty of the patients in the initial study were enrolled in the extension. In the late-breaker presentation, Dr. Karussis provided interim results on 23, of which all had been followed for at least another additional year. These patients had been treated with one to three intrathecal injects of MSCs at intervals of 3 to 6 months.

Of further gains during the extension, Dr. Karussis described gains in cognitive function, represented by a 3-degree improvement in the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), a median 17% improvement in the 25-foot walk test, and an improvement in quality of life, captured in domains of both physical and mental function. All of these gains were statistically significant.

The clinical responses were supported by reductions in both serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels and in the glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), which Dr. Karussis described as important biomarkers of disease progression. For sNfL, the reduction was 33.2% (P = .001), and there was further decline observed after repeated MSC injections.

The 22% (P < .0004) reduction in GFAP, which Dr. Karussis said has not been shown before, was observed in all 23 patients. Again, there was an additional reduction with repeated MSC treatments.

The safety and tolerability remained encouraging with longer follow-up. As in the original series, there were no serious adverse events. Headache and backache, which were more common among those receiving intrathecal injections of MSC in the original study, continued to be reported in the extension, but these were time-limited.

Although Dr. Karussis emphasized that these interim results await confirmation with longer follow-up and larger studies, he suggested that the consistency of benefit with early report provides “an additional hint of possible neuroprotective and neurotrophic effects.”
 

Mechanism of MSC Benefit Incompletely Documented

In patients with progressive MS, there is an urgent need for more and better therapies. MSCs, which reside primarily in bone marrow but can be found in other tissues, have been associated with immunomodulatory as well as neuroprotective effects in experimental studies, but whether one or the other or both of these activities are responsible for the clinical benefits observed so far is unresolved.

Others evaluating MSCs in the experimental setting have shown that these “produce a variety of soluble factors with immunomodulatory, neuroprotective, and repair-promoting properties,” said Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Cohen is director of the experimental therapeutics program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Cleveland Clinic. He said that previous experimental work has encouraged clinical studies, including the work presented by Dr. Karussis.

While the late-breaker presentation provided data suggesting “persistent potent efficacy with good safety and tolerability,” Dr. Cohen pointed out that “the results from this group are substantially better than those reported by several other groups.” He called the difference in results “uncertain,” suggesting that more work is needed to prove that clinical benefit is reliably achieved.

“I think it is too early to tell if MSC transplantation is going to be useful. Other than [the data] reported by the Karussis group, the results have been rather disappointing,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Karussis reports no potential conflicts of interest.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 
 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg., in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said.

 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 
 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg., in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said.

 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 
 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg., in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said.

 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.