Neurology Reviews

Frexalimab (Sanofi), a novel, investigational second-generation inhibitor of the CD40 ligand, significantly reduced disease activity in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) and was well tolerated in a phase 2 study.

At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.

The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.

The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
 

‘Unambiguous Benefit’

Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.

“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.

The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.

Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).

All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.

The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.

At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.

The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.

On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.

The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.

Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
 

Phase 3 Trials Underway

The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.

There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.

No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.

Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.

Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
 

‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”

If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”

Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”

“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”

“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.

While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
 

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

Frexalimab (Sanofi), a novel, investigational second-generation inhibitor of the CD40 ligand, significantly reduced disease activity in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) and was well tolerated in a phase 2 study.

At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.

The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.

The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
 

‘Unambiguous Benefit’

Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.

“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.

The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.

Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).

All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.

The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.

At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.

The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.

On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.

The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.

Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
 

Phase 3 Trials Underway

The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.

There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.

No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.

Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.

Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
 

‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”

If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”

Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”

“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”

“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.

While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
 

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

Frexalimab (Sanofi), a novel, investigational second-generation inhibitor of the CD40 ligand, significantly reduced disease activity in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) and was well tolerated in a phase 2 study.

At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.

The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.

The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
 

‘Unambiguous Benefit’

Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.

“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.

The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.

Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).

All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.

The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.

At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.

The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.

On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.

The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.

Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
 

Phase 3 Trials Underway

The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.

There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.

No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.

Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.

Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
 

‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”

If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”

Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”

“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”

“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.

While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
 

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — There is growing confidence that remyelinating agents will be a viable option in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the not-too-distant future, according to a summary of the science as well as a late-breaker study presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

In an outline of barriers to remyelinating drugs, including the challenge of delivering well-tolerated therapies into the central nervous system (CNS), Ari J. Green, MD, Chief of the Division of Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology, University of California, San Francisco, spoke specifically about recent progress in drug development.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“The important thing is that once we understand the biology, we can turn barriers into opportunities,” he said as he outlined advances over the 6 years since he led the ReBUILD trial.

“We are thinking of remyelination therapies as something off in the horizon,” said Dr. Green, but “the horizon might be closer than we might imagine.”

The double-blind ReBUILD trial provided the first evidence of activity from a remyelinating drug. In this study, 50 patients with chronic demyelinating optic neuropathy and relapsing-remitting MS were randomized to twice daily doses (5-36 mg) of clemastine fumarate for 90 days followed by placebo for 60 days or to placebo for 60 days followed by active drug for 90 days.
 

Remyelinating Effect Documented at Multiple Sites

The improvement on the primary endpoint of visual evoked potentials was interpreted as evidence that the therapy had a positive remyelinating effect, and Dr. Green said that the result has been reproduced by more than a dozen other centers.

The theoretical benefit is from a favorable effect on myelin-producing stem cells, but Dr. Green emphasized that theoretical benefits are not enough for moving the field forward. Negative trials with a theoretical potential to generate remyelination both preceded and followed ReBUILD. Examples include the RENEW study with the anti-lingo monoclonal antibody opicinumab and the CCMR One study with the non-selective retinoid X receptor agonist bexarotene.

Whether there is benefit or failure, “we need to be able to tell what is going on,” Dr. Green said. The reason is that a negative result is not necessarily due to the absence of a meaningful remyelination. Rather, other variables, such as an insufficient number of axons to remyelinate, might explain a lack of effect.

Citing evidence that remyelination and demyelination are often concurrent events, Dr. Green said that there is an urgent need for tools to objectively quantify myelination in order to document that drugs purported to favorably influence myelin repair are doing so. Surrogate markers are potentially unreliable.

“There is an unfortunate tendency in our field to overinterpret atrophy and neurodegeneration and to use those terms too loosely,” Dr. Green said. He said these terms are not interchangeable.

One basis for excitement is the growing support for the theory that oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (OPC) recruitment is critical to the remyelination process. By activating these cells or blocking inhibitors of their activity, experimental evidence suggests new myelin formation can occur. However, a clinically meaningful benefit might still be dependent on multiple additional factors, including the timing of OPC recruitment, Dr. Green explained.

“We might need to provide drugs with a remyelinating effect very early in the process,” he said.

The progress in understanding the interacting factors that define the biology of remyelination is the basis for new enthusiasm about this field, agreed Véronique Miron, PhD, Chair of the Multiple Sclerosis Research, Barlo MS Center, Toronto. Dr. Miron, professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Toronto, identified the session on remyelination in which Dr. Green spoke as one of the highlights of this year’s ACTRIMS conference.
 

Late-breaker: Two Remyelinating Drugs with Promise

Consistent with this progress, a late-breaker presentation on two drugs that promote oligodendrocyte formation and remyelination in the experimental setting reinforced the growing array of potential therapeutic targets to generate remyelination. The two drugs, CVL-1001 and CVL-2001, act by inhibiting the cholesterol biosynthesis enzymes sterol 14-demethylase (CYP51) and an emopamil binding protein (EBP).

Multiple studies have suggested that CYP51 and EBP are “key therapeutic targets to promote oligodendrocyte formation,” thereby promoting remyelination, reported Brad T. Lang, PhD, vice president of research for Convelo Therapeutics, Cleveland.

The drugs performed as predicted in animal models, where remyelination was documented, and in promoting human oligodendrocyte formation in human brain organoids. The development of these agents has been accompanied by strategy to measure their activity.

“We established a mechanistic biomarker to assess target engagement in the CNS and periphery to guide the next steps in preclinical and clinical development,” Dr. Lang said.

He called these drugs “first-in-class potential therapies in the field of remyelination.” While he acknowledged that no clinical studies have yet been performed, his late-breaker presentation indicated that many of the criteria identified by Dr. Green, including an ability to penetrate the CNS and a plausible, measurable mechanism of action have been fulfilled.

Dr. Green reported financial relationships with Biogen, Mylan, and Novartis. Dr. Miron reported no potential conflicts of interest.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — There is growing confidence that remyelinating agents will be a viable option in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the not-too-distant future, according to a summary of the science as well as a late-breaker study presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

In an outline of barriers to remyelinating drugs, including the challenge of delivering well-tolerated therapies into the central nervous system (CNS), Ari J. Green, MD, Chief of the Division of Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology, University of California, San Francisco, spoke specifically about recent progress in drug development.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“The important thing is that once we understand the biology, we can turn barriers into opportunities,” he said as he outlined advances over the 6 years since he led the ReBUILD trial.

“We are thinking of remyelination therapies as something off in the horizon,” said Dr. Green, but “the horizon might be closer than we might imagine.”

The double-blind ReBUILD trial provided the first evidence of activity from a remyelinating drug. In this study, 50 patients with chronic demyelinating optic neuropathy and relapsing-remitting MS were randomized to twice daily doses (5-36 mg) of clemastine fumarate for 90 days followed by placebo for 60 days or to placebo for 60 days followed by active drug for 90 days.
 

Remyelinating Effect Documented at Multiple Sites

The improvement on the primary endpoint of visual evoked potentials was interpreted as evidence that the therapy had a positive remyelinating effect, and Dr. Green said that the result has been reproduced by more than a dozen other centers.

The theoretical benefit is from a favorable effect on myelin-producing stem cells, but Dr. Green emphasized that theoretical benefits are not enough for moving the field forward. Negative trials with a theoretical potential to generate remyelination both preceded and followed ReBUILD. Examples include the RENEW study with the anti-lingo monoclonal antibody opicinumab and the CCMR One study with the non-selective retinoid X receptor agonist bexarotene.

Whether there is benefit or failure, “we need to be able to tell what is going on,” Dr. Green said. The reason is that a negative result is not necessarily due to the absence of a meaningful remyelination. Rather, other variables, such as an insufficient number of axons to remyelinate, might explain a lack of effect.

Citing evidence that remyelination and demyelination are often concurrent events, Dr. Green said that there is an urgent need for tools to objectively quantify myelination in order to document that drugs purported to favorably influence myelin repair are doing so. Surrogate markers are potentially unreliable.

“There is an unfortunate tendency in our field to overinterpret atrophy and neurodegeneration and to use those terms too loosely,” Dr. Green said. He said these terms are not interchangeable.

One basis for excitement is the growing support for the theory that oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (OPC) recruitment is critical to the remyelination process. By activating these cells or blocking inhibitors of their activity, experimental evidence suggests new myelin formation can occur. However, a clinically meaningful benefit might still be dependent on multiple additional factors, including the timing of OPC recruitment, Dr. Green explained.

“We might need to provide drugs with a remyelinating effect very early in the process,” he said.

The progress in understanding the interacting factors that define the biology of remyelination is the basis for new enthusiasm about this field, agreed Véronique Miron, PhD, Chair of the Multiple Sclerosis Research, Barlo MS Center, Toronto. Dr. Miron, professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Toronto, identified the session on remyelination in which Dr. Green spoke as one of the highlights of this year’s ACTRIMS conference.
 

Late-breaker: Two Remyelinating Drugs with Promise

Consistent with this progress, a late-breaker presentation on two drugs that promote oligodendrocyte formation and remyelination in the experimental setting reinforced the growing array of potential therapeutic targets to generate remyelination. The two drugs, CVL-1001 and CVL-2001, act by inhibiting the cholesterol biosynthesis enzymes sterol 14-demethylase (CYP51) and an emopamil binding protein (EBP).

Multiple studies have suggested that CYP51 and EBP are “key therapeutic targets to promote oligodendrocyte formation,” thereby promoting remyelination, reported Brad T. Lang, PhD, vice president of research for Convelo Therapeutics, Cleveland.

The drugs performed as predicted in animal models, where remyelination was documented, and in promoting human oligodendrocyte formation in human brain organoids. The development of these agents has been accompanied by strategy to measure their activity.

“We established a mechanistic biomarker to assess target engagement in the CNS and periphery to guide the next steps in preclinical and clinical development,” Dr. Lang said.

He called these drugs “first-in-class potential therapies in the field of remyelination.” While he acknowledged that no clinical studies have yet been performed, his late-breaker presentation indicated that many of the criteria identified by Dr. Green, including an ability to penetrate the CNS and a plausible, measurable mechanism of action have been fulfilled.

Dr. Green reported financial relationships with Biogen, Mylan, and Novartis. Dr. Miron reported no potential conflicts of interest.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — There is growing confidence that remyelinating agents will be a viable option in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the not-too-distant future, according to a summary of the science as well as a late-breaker study presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

In an outline of barriers to remyelinating drugs, including the challenge of delivering well-tolerated therapies into the central nervous system (CNS), Ari J. Green, MD, Chief of the Division of Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology, University of California, San Francisco, spoke specifically about recent progress in drug development.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“The important thing is that once we understand the biology, we can turn barriers into opportunities,” he said as he outlined advances over the 6 years since he led the ReBUILD trial.

“We are thinking of remyelination therapies as something off in the horizon,” said Dr. Green, but “the horizon might be closer than we might imagine.”

The double-blind ReBUILD trial provided the first evidence of activity from a remyelinating drug. In this study, 50 patients with chronic demyelinating optic neuropathy and relapsing-remitting MS were randomized to twice daily doses (5-36 mg) of clemastine fumarate for 90 days followed by placebo for 60 days or to placebo for 60 days followed by active drug for 90 days.
 

Remyelinating Effect Documented at Multiple Sites

The improvement on the primary endpoint of visual evoked potentials was interpreted as evidence that the therapy had a positive remyelinating effect, and Dr. Green said that the result has been reproduced by more than a dozen other centers.

The theoretical benefit is from a favorable effect on myelin-producing stem cells, but Dr. Green emphasized that theoretical benefits are not enough for moving the field forward. Negative trials with a theoretical potential to generate remyelination both preceded and followed ReBUILD. Examples include the RENEW study with the anti-lingo monoclonal antibody opicinumab and the CCMR One study with the non-selective retinoid X receptor agonist bexarotene.

Whether there is benefit or failure, “we need to be able to tell what is going on,” Dr. Green said. The reason is that a negative result is not necessarily due to the absence of a meaningful remyelination. Rather, other variables, such as an insufficient number of axons to remyelinate, might explain a lack of effect.

Citing evidence that remyelination and demyelination are often concurrent events, Dr. Green said that there is an urgent need for tools to objectively quantify myelination in order to document that drugs purported to favorably influence myelin repair are doing so. Surrogate markers are potentially unreliable.

“There is an unfortunate tendency in our field to overinterpret atrophy and neurodegeneration and to use those terms too loosely,” Dr. Green said. He said these terms are not interchangeable.

One basis for excitement is the growing support for the theory that oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (OPC) recruitment is critical to the remyelination process. By activating these cells or blocking inhibitors of their activity, experimental evidence suggests new myelin formation can occur. However, a clinically meaningful benefit might still be dependent on multiple additional factors, including the timing of OPC recruitment, Dr. Green explained.

“We might need to provide drugs with a remyelinating effect very early in the process,” he said.

The progress in understanding the interacting factors that define the biology of remyelination is the basis for new enthusiasm about this field, agreed Véronique Miron, PhD, Chair of the Multiple Sclerosis Research, Barlo MS Center, Toronto. Dr. Miron, professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Toronto, identified the session on remyelination in which Dr. Green spoke as one of the highlights of this year’s ACTRIMS conference.
 

Late-breaker: Two Remyelinating Drugs with Promise

Consistent with this progress, a late-breaker presentation on two drugs that promote oligodendrocyte formation and remyelination in the experimental setting reinforced the growing array of potential therapeutic targets to generate remyelination. The two drugs, CVL-1001 and CVL-2001, act by inhibiting the cholesterol biosynthesis enzymes sterol 14-demethylase (CYP51) and an emopamil binding protein (EBP).

Multiple studies have suggested that CYP51 and EBP are “key therapeutic targets to promote oligodendrocyte formation,” thereby promoting remyelination, reported Brad T. Lang, PhD, vice president of research for Convelo Therapeutics, Cleveland.

The drugs performed as predicted in animal models, where remyelination was documented, and in promoting human oligodendrocyte formation in human brain organoids. The development of these agents has been accompanied by strategy to measure their activity.

“We established a mechanistic biomarker to assess target engagement in the CNS and periphery to guide the next steps in preclinical and clinical development,” Dr. Lang said.

He called these drugs “first-in-class potential therapies in the field of remyelination.” While he acknowledged that no clinical studies have yet been performed, his late-breaker presentation indicated that many of the criteria identified by Dr. Green, including an ability to penetrate the CNS and a plausible, measurable mechanism of action have been fulfilled.

Dr. Green reported financial relationships with Biogen, Mylan, and Novartis. Dr. Miron reported no potential conflicts of interest.

TOPLINE:

Exposure to more traffic-related air pollution is associated with greater levels of amyloid plaques in the brain, with exposure in the 3 years before death having the greatest risk, a new postmortem study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators examined the brain tissue of 224 people living in the Atlanta area who agreed to donate their brains after death (average age of death, 76 years) for the presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles.
• They also studied the amount of fine particulate matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) from traffic-related air pollution at participants’ home addresses at 1, 3, and 5 years before death.
• The presence of the APOE e4 gene was examined for evidence of any effect on the relationship between air pollution and evidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

TAKEAWAY: 

The average level of exposure in the year before death was 1.32 µg/m³ and 1.35 µg/m³ in the 3 years before death.

People with 1 µg/m³ higher PM2.5 exposure in the year before death were nearly twice as likely to have higher levels of plaques (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12-3.30), while those with higher exposure in the 3 years before death were 87% more likely to have higher levels of plaques (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01-3.17).

A little more than half (56%) of the sample were positive for the APOE e4 genotype, but the strongest association between pollution and neuropathology markers was for noncarriers of the genotype, although this relationship did not reach statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

“More research is needed to establish causality for the association between PM2.5 and AD, including epidemiologic and mechanistic studies. Future studies should also investigate the association between PM2.5 and other dementia-related pathologies, including cerebrovascular pathology,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

Anke Hüls, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, led the study, which was published online on February 21, 2024, in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample was not population-based but a convenience sample composed mostly of highly educated White participants.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Goizueta Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. There were no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Exposure to more traffic-related air pollution is associated with greater levels of amyloid plaques in the brain, with exposure in the 3 years before death having the greatest risk, a new postmortem study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators examined the brain tissue of 224 people living in the Atlanta area who agreed to donate their brains after death (average age of death, 76 years) for the presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles.
• They also studied the amount of fine particulate matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) from traffic-related air pollution at participants’ home addresses at 1, 3, and 5 years before death.
• The presence of the APOE e4 gene was examined for evidence of any effect on the relationship between air pollution and evidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

TAKEAWAY: 

The average level of exposure in the year before death was 1.32 µg/m³ and 1.35 µg/m³ in the 3 years before death.

People with 1 µg/m³ higher PM2.5 exposure in the year before death were nearly twice as likely to have higher levels of plaques (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12-3.30), while those with higher exposure in the 3 years before death were 87% more likely to have higher levels of plaques (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01-3.17).

A little more than half (56%) of the sample were positive for the APOE e4 genotype, but the strongest association between pollution and neuropathology markers was for noncarriers of the genotype, although this relationship did not reach statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

“More research is needed to establish causality for the association between PM2.5 and AD, including epidemiologic and mechanistic studies. Future studies should also investigate the association between PM2.5 and other dementia-related pathologies, including cerebrovascular pathology,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

Anke Hüls, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, led the study, which was published online on February 21, 2024, in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample was not population-based but a convenience sample composed mostly of highly educated White participants.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Goizueta Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. There were no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Exposure to more traffic-related air pollution is associated with greater levels of amyloid plaques in the brain, with exposure in the 3 years before death having the greatest risk, a new postmortem study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators examined the brain tissue of 224 people living in the Atlanta area who agreed to donate their brains after death (average age of death, 76 years) for the presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles.
• They also studied the amount of fine particulate matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) from traffic-related air pollution at participants’ home addresses at 1, 3, and 5 years before death.
• The presence of the APOE e4 gene was examined for evidence of any effect on the relationship between air pollution and evidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

TAKEAWAY: 

The average level of exposure in the year before death was 1.32 µg/m³ and 1.35 µg/m³ in the 3 years before death.

People with 1 µg/m³ higher PM2.5 exposure in the year before death were nearly twice as likely to have higher levels of plaques (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12-3.30), while those with higher exposure in the 3 years before death were 87% more likely to have higher levels of plaques (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01-3.17).

A little more than half (56%) of the sample were positive for the APOE e4 genotype, but the strongest association between pollution and neuropathology markers was for noncarriers of the genotype, although this relationship did not reach statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

“More research is needed to establish causality for the association between PM2.5 and AD, including epidemiologic and mechanistic studies. Future studies should also investigate the association between PM2.5 and other dementia-related pathologies, including cerebrovascular pathology,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

Anke Hüls, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, led the study, which was published online on February 21, 2024, in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample was not population-based but a convenience sample composed mostly of highly educated White participants.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Goizueta Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. There were no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The odds of having cognitive impairment may be increased among children with atopic dermatitis, primarily among those with neurodevelopmental disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or a learning disability.

METHODOLOGY:

It remains unknown whether subpopulations of children with atopic dermatitis face a greater risk for cognitive impairment or not.

To determine the association, researchers drew from a weighted sample of 69,732,807 children with atopic dermatitis in the 2021 US National Health Interview Survey.

Main outcomes of interest were difficulty in learning or memory (cognitive impairment symptoms) as reported by the child’s caregiver.

The researchers performed logistic regression to compare the odds of learning or memory difficulties between 60,509,794 children without atopic dermatitis and 9,223,013 children with atopic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

Children with versus without atopic dermatitis were more likely to experience difficulties with learning (10.8% [95% CI, 7.8%-15.8%] vs 5.9% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.9%]; P < .001) and difficulties with memory (11.1% [95% CI, 8.0%-15.9%] vs 5.8% [95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%]; P < .001).

On multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sociodemographic factors, asthma, food allergies, and seasonal allergies or hay fever, researchers found that having atopic dermatitis was associated with increased odds of difficulties in learning (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.45) and memory (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.19-2.41). 

When stratified by neurodevelopmental comorbidities, having atopic dermatitis was associated with a 2- to 3-fold greater odds of memory difficulties among children with any neurodevelopmental disorder (aOR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.43-3.57), which included ADHD (aOR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.60-5.24) or learning disabilities (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04-4.00).

Having atopic dermatitis was not associated with learning or memory difficulties among children without neurodevelopmental conditions. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may improve the risk stratification of children with atopic dermatitis for cognitive impairment and suggest that evaluation for cognitive impairment should be prioritized among children with atopic dermatitis and comorbid ADHD or learning disability,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Joy Wan, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published on March 6, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations were its cross-sectional design, reliance on caregiver reports, and the fact that National Health Interview Survey data do not include information on factors such as atopic dermatitis severity, age at atopic dermatitis diagnosis, and sleep. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wan reported receiving a grant from Pfizer and personal fees from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. No other study authors had disclosures to report. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The odds of having cognitive impairment may be increased among children with atopic dermatitis, primarily among those with neurodevelopmental disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or a learning disability.

METHODOLOGY:

It remains unknown whether subpopulations of children with atopic dermatitis face a greater risk for cognitive impairment or not.

To determine the association, researchers drew from a weighted sample of 69,732,807 children with atopic dermatitis in the 2021 US National Health Interview Survey.

Main outcomes of interest were difficulty in learning or memory (cognitive impairment symptoms) as reported by the child’s caregiver.

The researchers performed logistic regression to compare the odds of learning or memory difficulties between 60,509,794 children without atopic dermatitis and 9,223,013 children with atopic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

Children with versus without atopic dermatitis were more likely to experience difficulties with learning (10.8% [95% CI, 7.8%-15.8%] vs 5.9% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.9%]; P < .001) and difficulties with memory (11.1% [95% CI, 8.0%-15.9%] vs 5.8% [95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%]; P < .001).

On multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sociodemographic factors, asthma, food allergies, and seasonal allergies or hay fever, researchers found that having atopic dermatitis was associated with increased odds of difficulties in learning (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.45) and memory (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.19-2.41). 

When stratified by neurodevelopmental comorbidities, having atopic dermatitis was associated with a 2- to 3-fold greater odds of memory difficulties among children with any neurodevelopmental disorder (aOR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.43-3.57), which included ADHD (aOR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.60-5.24) or learning disabilities (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04-4.00).

Having atopic dermatitis was not associated with learning or memory difficulties among children without neurodevelopmental conditions. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may improve the risk stratification of children with atopic dermatitis for cognitive impairment and suggest that evaluation for cognitive impairment should be prioritized among children with atopic dermatitis and comorbid ADHD or learning disability,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Joy Wan, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published on March 6, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations were its cross-sectional design, reliance on caregiver reports, and the fact that National Health Interview Survey data do not include information on factors such as atopic dermatitis severity, age at atopic dermatitis diagnosis, and sleep. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wan reported receiving a grant from Pfizer and personal fees from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. No other study authors had disclosures to report. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The odds of having cognitive impairment may be increased among children with atopic dermatitis, primarily among those with neurodevelopmental disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or a learning disability.

METHODOLOGY:

It remains unknown whether subpopulations of children with atopic dermatitis face a greater risk for cognitive impairment or not.

To determine the association, researchers drew from a weighted sample of 69,732,807 children with atopic dermatitis in the 2021 US National Health Interview Survey.

Main outcomes of interest were difficulty in learning or memory (cognitive impairment symptoms) as reported by the child’s caregiver.

The researchers performed logistic regression to compare the odds of learning or memory difficulties between 60,509,794 children without atopic dermatitis and 9,223,013 children with atopic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

Children with versus without atopic dermatitis were more likely to experience difficulties with learning (10.8% [95% CI, 7.8%-15.8%] vs 5.9% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.9%]; P < .001) and difficulties with memory (11.1% [95% CI, 8.0%-15.9%] vs 5.8% [95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%]; P < .001).

On multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sociodemographic factors, asthma, food allergies, and seasonal allergies or hay fever, researchers found that having atopic dermatitis was associated with increased odds of difficulties in learning (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.45) and memory (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.19-2.41). 

When stratified by neurodevelopmental comorbidities, having atopic dermatitis was associated with a 2- to 3-fold greater odds of memory difficulties among children with any neurodevelopmental disorder (aOR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.43-3.57), which included ADHD (aOR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.60-5.24) or learning disabilities (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04-4.00).

Having atopic dermatitis was not associated with learning or memory difficulties among children without neurodevelopmental conditions. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may improve the risk stratification of children with atopic dermatitis for cognitive impairment and suggest that evaluation for cognitive impairment should be prioritized among children with atopic dermatitis and comorbid ADHD or learning disability,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Joy Wan, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published on March 6, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations were its cross-sectional design, reliance on caregiver reports, and the fact that National Health Interview Survey data do not include information on factors such as atopic dermatitis severity, age at atopic dermatitis diagnosis, and sleep. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wan reported receiving a grant from Pfizer and personal fees from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. No other study authors had disclosures to report. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — Migraine, a common comorbidity in multiple sclerosis (MS), is not part of the MS prodrome, new research suggested. Investigators found that patients with MS were more likely than controls to develop migraine shortly before disease diagnosis, suggesting the headache type is not a forerunner of MS.

“The risk [of migraine] was concentrated in the year of their first [MS] symptom, or the year prior, instead of many years before,” said lead investigator Vinicius A. Schoeps, MD, MPH, postdoctoral fellow at the University of California San Francisco.

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

Is MS a Migraine Trigger?

Worldwide up to 43% of patients with MS report migraine. Recent data point to a 3- to 5-year clinically symptomatic prodromal phase of MS and suggest migraine may be one of its potential constituents. However, the relationship between the two disorders remains unclear.

The investigators wanted to determine whether migraine is part of the MS prodrome because if this is the case, it could provide a potential opportunity for early intervention to delay or prevent the disease.

The team analyzed incidence cases of MS and matched controls in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system from 2011 to 2014. Participants took part in structured in-person interviews that included questions about migraine.

The 591 MS cases had an average age of onset at 36 years, with a similar index date for controls. Among the cases, 71% were women, 42% were White, 32% Hispanic, and 21% Black. Almost 40% of cases had obesity. These demographic data were similar in the control group.

In those with MS, 13% had a history of mononucleosis compared with 6% of controls. Epstein-Barr virus, which causes conditions such as mononucleosis, was considered a likely cause of MS.

Migraine was diagnosed before MS onset in 27% of cases and before the index date in 21% of controls (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.36; P = .03). Migraine onset occurred later in cases versus controls (mean, 21 years vs 17 years; P = .008).

Migraine was also more likely to occur at the same time or 1 year prior to MS symptoms or the index date in cases versus controls (4.3% vs 1.3%; aOR, 3.54; P = .002).

“These findings suggest that migraine can be triggered by MS rather than part of the constellation of nonspecific symptoms that constitute the 3- to 5-year-long MS prodrome,” the investigators reported.

“The inflammatory setting of the first MS relapse might be actually triggering the migraine,” Dr. Shoeps said. He added that patients with MS developed migraines later in life.

“There could be a different pathological process in people who have traditional migraine at the most common age where people get their diagnosis of migraine — and have them throughout their lifetime — versus having a migraine at older age and a diagnosis of MS close to that period of time,” he said. However, he noted, the study design does not allow for this type of analysis.

Commenting on the findings, Anibal Chertcoff, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in the Multiple Sclerosis Research Centre at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, noted the study’s large population and well-balanced case and control groups are strengths of the study.

However, Dr. Chertcoff, who was not involved in the research, cautioned that the study is cross-sectional noting that he is “not convinced this is the best type of study design to provide insights into cause-and-effect relationships.”

Dr. Chertcoff added the findings are limited by their reliance on data from a single health system.

Disclosures were not provided. A grant from the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke to an author helped support the study. Dr. Chertcoff received funding from MS Canada and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and support from Novartis to attend a scientific meeting.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — Migraine, a common comorbidity in multiple sclerosis (MS), is not part of the MS prodrome, new research suggested. Investigators found that patients with MS were more likely than controls to develop migraine shortly before disease diagnosis, suggesting the headache type is not a forerunner of MS.

“The risk [of migraine] was concentrated in the year of their first [MS] symptom, or the year prior, instead of many years before,” said lead investigator Vinicius A. Schoeps, MD, MPH, postdoctoral fellow at the University of California San Francisco.

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

Is MS a Migraine Trigger?

Worldwide up to 43% of patients with MS report migraine. Recent data point to a 3- to 5-year clinically symptomatic prodromal phase of MS and suggest migraine may be one of its potential constituents. However, the relationship between the two disorders remains unclear.

The investigators wanted to determine whether migraine is part of the MS prodrome because if this is the case, it could provide a potential opportunity for early intervention to delay or prevent the disease.

The team analyzed incidence cases of MS and matched controls in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system from 2011 to 2014. Participants took part in structured in-person interviews that included questions about migraine.

The 591 MS cases had an average age of onset at 36 years, with a similar index date for controls. Among the cases, 71% were women, 42% were White, 32% Hispanic, and 21% Black. Almost 40% of cases had obesity. These demographic data were similar in the control group.

In those with MS, 13% had a history of mononucleosis compared with 6% of controls. Epstein-Barr virus, which causes conditions such as mononucleosis, was considered a likely cause of MS.

Migraine was diagnosed before MS onset in 27% of cases and before the index date in 21% of controls (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.36; P = .03). Migraine onset occurred later in cases versus controls (mean, 21 years vs 17 years; P = .008).

Migraine was also more likely to occur at the same time or 1 year prior to MS symptoms or the index date in cases versus controls (4.3% vs 1.3%; aOR, 3.54; P = .002).

“These findings suggest that migraine can be triggered by MS rather than part of the constellation of nonspecific symptoms that constitute the 3- to 5-year-long MS prodrome,” the investigators reported.

“The inflammatory setting of the first MS relapse might be actually triggering the migraine,” Dr. Shoeps said. He added that patients with MS developed migraines later in life.

“There could be a different pathological process in people who have traditional migraine at the most common age where people get their diagnosis of migraine — and have them throughout their lifetime — versus having a migraine at older age and a diagnosis of MS close to that period of time,” he said. However, he noted, the study design does not allow for this type of analysis.

Commenting on the findings, Anibal Chertcoff, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in the Multiple Sclerosis Research Centre at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, noted the study’s large population and well-balanced case and control groups are strengths of the study.

However, Dr. Chertcoff, who was not involved in the research, cautioned that the study is cross-sectional noting that he is “not convinced this is the best type of study design to provide insights into cause-and-effect relationships.”

Dr. Chertcoff added the findings are limited by their reliance on data from a single health system.

Disclosures were not provided. A grant from the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke to an author helped support the study. Dr. Chertcoff received funding from MS Canada and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and support from Novartis to attend a scientific meeting.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — Migraine, a common comorbidity in multiple sclerosis (MS), is not part of the MS prodrome, new research suggested. Investigators found that patients with MS were more likely than controls to develop migraine shortly before disease diagnosis, suggesting the headache type is not a forerunner of MS.

“The risk [of migraine] was concentrated in the year of their first [MS] symptom, or the year prior, instead of many years before,” said lead investigator Vinicius A. Schoeps, MD, MPH, postdoctoral fellow at the University of California San Francisco.

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

Is MS a Migraine Trigger?

Worldwide up to 43% of patients with MS report migraine. Recent data point to a 3- to 5-year clinically symptomatic prodromal phase of MS and suggest migraine may be one of its potential constituents. However, the relationship between the two disorders remains unclear.

The investigators wanted to determine whether migraine is part of the MS prodrome because if this is the case, it could provide a potential opportunity for early intervention to delay or prevent the disease.

The team analyzed incidence cases of MS and matched controls in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system from 2011 to 2014. Participants took part in structured in-person interviews that included questions about migraine.

The 591 MS cases had an average age of onset at 36 years, with a similar index date for controls. Among the cases, 71% were women, 42% were White, 32% Hispanic, and 21% Black. Almost 40% of cases had obesity. These demographic data were similar in the control group.

In those with MS, 13% had a history of mononucleosis compared with 6% of controls. Epstein-Barr virus, which causes conditions such as mononucleosis, was considered a likely cause of MS.

Migraine was diagnosed before MS onset in 27% of cases and before the index date in 21% of controls (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.36; P = .03). Migraine onset occurred later in cases versus controls (mean, 21 years vs 17 years; P = .008).

Migraine was also more likely to occur at the same time or 1 year prior to MS symptoms or the index date in cases versus controls (4.3% vs 1.3%; aOR, 3.54; P = .002).

“These findings suggest that migraine can be triggered by MS rather than part of the constellation of nonspecific symptoms that constitute the 3- to 5-year-long MS prodrome,” the investigators reported.

“The inflammatory setting of the first MS relapse might be actually triggering the migraine,” Dr. Shoeps said. He added that patients with MS developed migraines later in life.

“There could be a different pathological process in people who have traditional migraine at the most common age where people get their diagnosis of migraine — and have them throughout their lifetime — versus having a migraine at older age and a diagnosis of MS close to that period of time,” he said. However, he noted, the study design does not allow for this type of analysis.

Commenting on the findings, Anibal Chertcoff, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in the Multiple Sclerosis Research Centre at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, noted the study’s large population and well-balanced case and control groups are strengths of the study.

However, Dr. Chertcoff, who was not involved in the research, cautioned that the study is cross-sectional noting that he is “not convinced this is the best type of study design to provide insights into cause-and-effect relationships.”

Dr. Chertcoff added the findings are limited by their reliance on data from a single health system.

Disclosures were not provided. A grant from the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke to an author helped support the study. Dr. Chertcoff received funding from MS Canada and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and support from Novartis to attend a scientific meeting.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have almost double the risk for seizures, with the risk even greater with sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators, results of a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest. Those with a progressive disease phenotype are at particularly high seizure risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The meta-analysis included 63 phase 3 RCTs with 53,535 patients.
• Most of the studies included in the meta-analysis investigated disease-modifying treatments compared with placebo or an active comparator such as interferon beta, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate, in terms of relapse rate and/or disability progression.
• Researchers extracted relevant information from studies, including MS subtype (clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting, primary progressive, or secondary progressive MS), mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, lesion volume on T2-hyperintense sequence, normalized brain volume, and number of seizures or epilepsy events.
• They calculated the pooled effect size of studies on the incidence rate of seizure or epilepsy as the number of events per patient-years and explored which variables influenced the pooled effect size.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 120 patients experienced epileptic seizure events over a median follow-up of 2 years, resulting in a pooled incidence rate of 68.0 (95% CI, 49.1-86.9) per 100,000 patient-years, which investigators noted is significantly higher than the general population rate of 34.6.
• Higher seizure incidence rates were found among patients with progressive disease courses, longer time since clinical onset, higher EDSS scores, and lower normalized brain volume; age and T2 lesion volume did not affect the pooled effect size.
• Patients treated with S1PR modulators (fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, and siponimod) had more than double the risk for seizure compared with placebo or comparators (estimated incident seizure risk ratio, 2.45; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore epilepsy as a significant comorbidity in MS and emphasize the necessity for further research into its triggers, preventive measures and treatment strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Valeria Pozzilli, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology and Neurobiology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Roma, Italy, was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

As none of the included RCTs considered epilepsy an exclusion criterion, patients with comorbid epilepsy may have been enrolled in these studies. There was significant diversity in reporting of adverse events across studies. While this study’s statistical methodology was robust, the findings can’t be applied directly to individuals due to the risk for ecological fallacy.

DISCLOSURES:

Pozzilli had no relevant conflicts of interests. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have almost double the risk for seizures, with the risk even greater with sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators, results of a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest. Those with a progressive disease phenotype are at particularly high seizure risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The meta-analysis included 63 phase 3 RCTs with 53,535 patients.
• Most of the studies included in the meta-analysis investigated disease-modifying treatments compared with placebo or an active comparator such as interferon beta, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate, in terms of relapse rate and/or disability progression.
• Researchers extracted relevant information from studies, including MS subtype (clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting, primary progressive, or secondary progressive MS), mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, lesion volume on T2-hyperintense sequence, normalized brain volume, and number of seizures or epilepsy events.
• They calculated the pooled effect size of studies on the incidence rate of seizure or epilepsy as the number of events per patient-years and explored which variables influenced the pooled effect size.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 120 patients experienced epileptic seizure events over a median follow-up of 2 years, resulting in a pooled incidence rate of 68.0 (95% CI, 49.1-86.9) per 100,000 patient-years, which investigators noted is significantly higher than the general population rate of 34.6.
• Higher seizure incidence rates were found among patients with progressive disease courses, longer time since clinical onset, higher EDSS scores, and lower normalized brain volume; age and T2 lesion volume did not affect the pooled effect size.
• Patients treated with S1PR modulators (fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, and siponimod) had more than double the risk for seizure compared with placebo or comparators (estimated incident seizure risk ratio, 2.45; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore epilepsy as a significant comorbidity in MS and emphasize the necessity for further research into its triggers, preventive measures and treatment strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Valeria Pozzilli, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology and Neurobiology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Roma, Italy, was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

As none of the included RCTs considered epilepsy an exclusion criterion, patients with comorbid epilepsy may have been enrolled in these studies. There was significant diversity in reporting of adverse events across studies. While this study’s statistical methodology was robust, the findings can’t be applied directly to individuals due to the risk for ecological fallacy.

DISCLOSURES:

Pozzilli had no relevant conflicts of interests. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have almost double the risk for seizures, with the risk even greater with sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators, results of a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest. Those with a progressive disease phenotype are at particularly high seizure risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The meta-analysis included 63 phase 3 RCTs with 53,535 patients.
• Most of the studies included in the meta-analysis investigated disease-modifying treatments compared with placebo or an active comparator such as interferon beta, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate, in terms of relapse rate and/or disability progression.
• Researchers extracted relevant information from studies, including MS subtype (clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting, primary progressive, or secondary progressive MS), mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, lesion volume on T2-hyperintense sequence, normalized brain volume, and number of seizures or epilepsy events.
• They calculated the pooled effect size of studies on the incidence rate of seizure or epilepsy as the number of events per patient-years and explored which variables influenced the pooled effect size.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 120 patients experienced epileptic seizure events over a median follow-up of 2 years, resulting in a pooled incidence rate of 68.0 (95% CI, 49.1-86.9) per 100,000 patient-years, which investigators noted is significantly higher than the general population rate of 34.6.
• Higher seizure incidence rates were found among patients with progressive disease courses, longer time since clinical onset, higher EDSS scores, and lower normalized brain volume; age and T2 lesion volume did not affect the pooled effect size.
• Patients treated with S1PR modulators (fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, and siponimod) had more than double the risk for seizure compared with placebo or comparators (estimated incident seizure risk ratio, 2.45; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore epilepsy as a significant comorbidity in MS and emphasize the necessity for further research into its triggers, preventive measures and treatment strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Valeria Pozzilli, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology and Neurobiology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Roma, Italy, was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

As none of the included RCTs considered epilepsy an exclusion criterion, patients with comorbid epilepsy may have been enrolled in these studies. There was significant diversity in reporting of adverse events across studies. While this study’s statistical methodology was robust, the findings can’t be applied directly to individuals due to the risk for ecological fallacy.

DISCLOSURES:

Pozzilli had no relevant conflicts of interests. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Posttraumatic headache (PTH) is associated with an increase in iron accumulation in certain brain regions , notably those involved in the pain network, early research shows.

Investigators found positive correlations between iron accumulation and headache frequency, number of lifetime mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBIs), and time since last mTBI.

The findings come on the heels of previous research showing patients with iron accumulation in certain brain regions don’t respond as well to treatment, study investigator, Simona Nikolova, PhD, assistant professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, told this news organization.

“This is really important, and doctors need to be aware of it. If you have a patient who is not responding to treatment, then you know what to look at,” she said. 

The findings (Abstract #3379) will be presented on April 15 at the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) 2024 Annual Meeting. 
 

Dose Effect

The study included 60 people with acute PTH due to mTBI. Most were White, and almost half had sustained a concussion due to a fall, with about 30% injured in a vehicle accident and a smaller number injured during a fight.

The mean number of lifetime mTBIs was 2.4, although participants had sustained as many as five or six and as few as one. The mean time from the most recent mTBI was 25 days, and the mean score on the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT), which measures postconcussion symptom severity, was 29.

Most in the mTBI group (43) had migraine or probable migraine, and 14 had tension-type headaches. Mean headache frequency was 81%.

Researchers matched these patients with 60 controls without concussion or headache. Because iron accumulation is age-related, they tried to eliminate this covariant by pairing each participant with mTBI with an age- and sex-matched control.

All participants underwent a type of brain MRI known as T2* weighted sequence that can identify brain iron accumulation, a marker of neural injury. 

Investigators found that the PTH group had significantly higher levels of iron accumulation in several areas of the brain, most of which are part of a “pain network” that includes about 63 areas of the brain, Dr. Nikolova said.

The study wasn’t designed to determine how much more iron accumulation mTBI patients had vs controls. 

“We can’t say it was twice as much or three times as much; we can only say it was significant. Measuring concentrations in PTH patients and comparing that with controls is something we haven’t don’t yet,” said Dr. Nikolova.

Areas of the brain with increased iron accumulation, included the periaqueductal gray (PAG), anterior cingulated cortex, and supramarginal gyrus. 

Research suggests patients with migraine who have elevated levels of iron in the PAG have a poorer response to botulinum toxin treatment. An earlier study by the same team showed a poorer response to the calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitor erenumab in migraine patients with elevated iron in the PAG.

Researchers discovered that those with more lifetime TBIs had higher iron accumulation in the right gyrus rectus and right putamen vs those with fewer injuries and that headache frequency was associated with iron accumulation in the posterior corona radiata, bilateral temporal, right frontal, bilateral supplemental motor area, left fusiform, right hippocampus, sagittal striatum, and left cerebellum.
 

Surprising Result

The investigators also found a link between time since the most recent mTBI and iron accumulation in the bilateral temporal, right hippocampus, posterior and superior corona radiata, bilateral thalamus, right precuneus and cuneus, right lingual, and right cerebellum. 

“The more time that passed since the concussion occurred, the more likely that people had higher iron levels,” said Dr. Nikolova.

It’s perhaps to be expected that the length of time since injury is linked to iron accumulation in the brain as iron accumulates over time. But even those whose injury was relatively recent had higher amounts of iron, which Dr. Nikolova said was “surprising.”

“We thought iron accumulates over time so we were thinking maybe we should be doing a longitudinal study to see what happens, but we see definite iron accumulation due to injury shortly after the injury,” she said.

There was no association between iron accumulation and symptom severity as measured by SCAT scores.
 

Questions Remain

It’s unclear why iron accumulates after an injury or what the ramifications are of this accumulation, Dr. Nikolova noted. 

The imaging used in the study doesn’t distinguish between “bound” iron found after a hemorrhage and “free” iron in the brain. The free iron type has been shown to be increased after TBI and is “the stuff you should be afraid of,” Dr. Nikolova said.

Iron’s role in the metabolic process is important, but must be closely regulated, she said. Even a small accumulation can lead to oxidative stress.

Researchers are investigating whether the findings would be similar in mTBI but no headache and want to increase the number of study participants. A larger, more diverse sample would allow them to probe other questions, including whether iron accumulation is different in men and women. More data could also eventually lead to iron accumulation becoming a biomarker for concussion and PTH, Dr. Nikolova said.

“If you know a certain person has that biomarker, you might be able to administer a drug or some therapeutic procedure to prevent that iron from continuing to accumulate in the brain.”

Chelation drugs and other therapies may clear iron from the body but not necessarily from the brain. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie , said that the study supports the hypothesis that concussion “is not a benign process for the brain, and the cumulative effect of repetitive head injury can result in permanent brain injury.”

He said that he found the accumulation of iron in cortical structures particularly interesting. This, he said, differs from most current research that suggests head trauma mainly results in damage to white matter tracts.

He prefers the term “concussion” over “mild traumatic brain injury” which was used in the study. “Recent guidelines, including some that I’ve been involved with, have defined mild traumatic brain injury as a more permanent process,” he said.

The study was supported by the US Department of Defense and National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Posttraumatic headache (PTH) is associated with an increase in iron accumulation in certain brain regions , notably those involved in the pain network, early research shows.

Investigators found positive correlations between iron accumulation and headache frequency, number of lifetime mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBIs), and time since last mTBI.

The findings come on the heels of previous research showing patients with iron accumulation in certain brain regions don’t respond as well to treatment, study investigator, Simona Nikolova, PhD, assistant professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, told this news organization.

“This is really important, and doctors need to be aware of it. If you have a patient who is not responding to treatment, then you know what to look at,” she said. 

The findings (Abstract #3379) will be presented on April 15 at the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) 2024 Annual Meeting. 
 

Dose Effect

The study included 60 people with acute PTH due to mTBI. Most were White, and almost half had sustained a concussion due to a fall, with about 30% injured in a vehicle accident and a smaller number injured during a fight.

The mean number of lifetime mTBIs was 2.4, although participants had sustained as many as five or six and as few as one. The mean time from the most recent mTBI was 25 days, and the mean score on the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT), which measures postconcussion symptom severity, was 29.

Most in the mTBI group (43) had migraine or probable migraine, and 14 had tension-type headaches. Mean headache frequency was 81%.

Researchers matched these patients with 60 controls without concussion or headache. Because iron accumulation is age-related, they tried to eliminate this covariant by pairing each participant with mTBI with an age- and sex-matched control.

All participants underwent a type of brain MRI known as T2* weighted sequence that can identify brain iron accumulation, a marker of neural injury. 

Investigators found that the PTH group had significantly higher levels of iron accumulation in several areas of the brain, most of which are part of a “pain network” that includes about 63 areas of the brain, Dr. Nikolova said.

The study wasn’t designed to determine how much more iron accumulation mTBI patients had vs controls. 

“We can’t say it was twice as much or three times as much; we can only say it was significant. Measuring concentrations in PTH patients and comparing that with controls is something we haven’t don’t yet,” said Dr. Nikolova.

Areas of the brain with increased iron accumulation, included the periaqueductal gray (PAG), anterior cingulated cortex, and supramarginal gyrus. 

Research suggests patients with migraine who have elevated levels of iron in the PAG have a poorer response to botulinum toxin treatment. An earlier study by the same team showed a poorer response to the calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitor erenumab in migraine patients with elevated iron in the PAG.

Researchers discovered that those with more lifetime TBIs had higher iron accumulation in the right gyrus rectus and right putamen vs those with fewer injuries and that headache frequency was associated with iron accumulation in the posterior corona radiata, bilateral temporal, right frontal, bilateral supplemental motor area, left fusiform, right hippocampus, sagittal striatum, and left cerebellum.
 

Surprising Result

The investigators also found a link between time since the most recent mTBI and iron accumulation in the bilateral temporal, right hippocampus, posterior and superior corona radiata, bilateral thalamus, right precuneus and cuneus, right lingual, and right cerebellum. 

“The more time that passed since the concussion occurred, the more likely that people had higher iron levels,” said Dr. Nikolova.

It’s perhaps to be expected that the length of time since injury is linked to iron accumulation in the brain as iron accumulates over time. But even those whose injury was relatively recent had higher amounts of iron, which Dr. Nikolova said was “surprising.”

“We thought iron accumulates over time so we were thinking maybe we should be doing a longitudinal study to see what happens, but we see definite iron accumulation due to injury shortly after the injury,” she said.

There was no association between iron accumulation and symptom severity as measured by SCAT scores.
 

Questions Remain

It’s unclear why iron accumulates after an injury or what the ramifications are of this accumulation, Dr. Nikolova noted. 

The imaging used in the study doesn’t distinguish between “bound” iron found after a hemorrhage and “free” iron in the brain. The free iron type has been shown to be increased after TBI and is “the stuff you should be afraid of,” Dr. Nikolova said.

Iron’s role in the metabolic process is important, but must be closely regulated, she said. Even a small accumulation can lead to oxidative stress.

Researchers are investigating whether the findings would be similar in mTBI but no headache and want to increase the number of study participants. A larger, more diverse sample would allow them to probe other questions, including whether iron accumulation is different in men and women. More data could also eventually lead to iron accumulation becoming a biomarker for concussion and PTH, Dr. Nikolova said.

“If you know a certain person has that biomarker, you might be able to administer a drug or some therapeutic procedure to prevent that iron from continuing to accumulate in the brain.”

Chelation drugs and other therapies may clear iron from the body but not necessarily from the brain. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie , said that the study supports the hypothesis that concussion “is not a benign process for the brain, and the cumulative effect of repetitive head injury can result in permanent brain injury.”

He said that he found the accumulation of iron in cortical structures particularly interesting. This, he said, differs from most current research that suggests head trauma mainly results in damage to white matter tracts.

He prefers the term “concussion” over “mild traumatic brain injury” which was used in the study. “Recent guidelines, including some that I’ve been involved with, have defined mild traumatic brain injury as a more permanent process,” he said.

The study was supported by the US Department of Defense and National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Posttraumatic headache (PTH) is associated with an increase in iron accumulation in certain brain regions , notably those involved in the pain network, early research shows.

Investigators found positive correlations between iron accumulation and headache frequency, number of lifetime mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBIs), and time since last mTBI.

The findings come on the heels of previous research showing patients with iron accumulation in certain brain regions don’t respond as well to treatment, study investigator, Simona Nikolova, PhD, assistant professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, told this news organization.

“This is really important, and doctors need to be aware of it. If you have a patient who is not responding to treatment, then you know what to look at,” she said. 

The findings (Abstract #3379) will be presented on April 15 at the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) 2024 Annual Meeting. 
 

Dose Effect

The study included 60 people with acute PTH due to mTBI. Most were White, and almost half had sustained a concussion due to a fall, with about 30% injured in a vehicle accident and a smaller number injured during a fight.

The mean number of lifetime mTBIs was 2.4, although participants had sustained as many as five or six and as few as one. The mean time from the most recent mTBI was 25 days, and the mean score on the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT), which measures postconcussion symptom severity, was 29.

Most in the mTBI group (43) had migraine or probable migraine, and 14 had tension-type headaches. Mean headache frequency was 81%.

Researchers matched these patients with 60 controls without concussion or headache. Because iron accumulation is age-related, they tried to eliminate this covariant by pairing each participant with mTBI with an age- and sex-matched control.

All participants underwent a type of brain MRI known as T2* weighted sequence that can identify brain iron accumulation, a marker of neural injury. 

Investigators found that the PTH group had significantly higher levels of iron accumulation in several areas of the brain, most of which are part of a “pain network” that includes about 63 areas of the brain, Dr. Nikolova said.

The study wasn’t designed to determine how much more iron accumulation mTBI patients had vs controls. 

“We can’t say it was twice as much or three times as much; we can only say it was significant. Measuring concentrations in PTH patients and comparing that with controls is something we haven’t don’t yet,” said Dr. Nikolova.

Areas of the brain with increased iron accumulation, included the periaqueductal gray (PAG), anterior cingulated cortex, and supramarginal gyrus. 

Research suggests patients with migraine who have elevated levels of iron in the PAG have a poorer response to botulinum toxin treatment. An earlier study by the same team showed a poorer response to the calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitor erenumab in migraine patients with elevated iron in the PAG.

Researchers discovered that those with more lifetime TBIs had higher iron accumulation in the right gyrus rectus and right putamen vs those with fewer injuries and that headache frequency was associated with iron accumulation in the posterior corona radiata, bilateral temporal, right frontal, bilateral supplemental motor area, left fusiform, right hippocampus, sagittal striatum, and left cerebellum.
 

Surprising Result

The investigators also found a link between time since the most recent mTBI and iron accumulation in the bilateral temporal, right hippocampus, posterior and superior corona radiata, bilateral thalamus, right precuneus and cuneus, right lingual, and right cerebellum. 

“The more time that passed since the concussion occurred, the more likely that people had higher iron levels,” said Dr. Nikolova.

It’s perhaps to be expected that the length of time since injury is linked to iron accumulation in the brain as iron accumulates over time. But even those whose injury was relatively recent had higher amounts of iron, which Dr. Nikolova said was “surprising.”

“We thought iron accumulates over time so we were thinking maybe we should be doing a longitudinal study to see what happens, but we see definite iron accumulation due to injury shortly after the injury,” she said.

There was no association between iron accumulation and symptom severity as measured by SCAT scores.
 

Questions Remain

It’s unclear why iron accumulates after an injury or what the ramifications are of this accumulation, Dr. Nikolova noted. 

The imaging used in the study doesn’t distinguish between “bound” iron found after a hemorrhage and “free” iron in the brain. The free iron type has been shown to be increased after TBI and is “the stuff you should be afraid of,” Dr. Nikolova said.

Iron’s role in the metabolic process is important, but must be closely regulated, she said. Even a small accumulation can lead to oxidative stress.

Researchers are investigating whether the findings would be similar in mTBI but no headache and want to increase the number of study participants. A larger, more diverse sample would allow them to probe other questions, including whether iron accumulation is different in men and women. More data could also eventually lead to iron accumulation becoming a biomarker for concussion and PTH, Dr. Nikolova said.

“If you know a certain person has that biomarker, you might be able to administer a drug or some therapeutic procedure to prevent that iron from continuing to accumulate in the brain.”

Chelation drugs and other therapies may clear iron from the body but not necessarily from the brain. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie , said that the study supports the hypothesis that concussion “is not a benign process for the brain, and the cumulative effect of repetitive head injury can result in permanent brain injury.”

He said that he found the accumulation of iron in cortical structures particularly interesting. This, he said, differs from most current research that suggests head trauma mainly results in damage to white matter tracts.

He prefers the term “concussion” over “mild traumatic brain injury” which was used in the study. “Recent guidelines, including some that I’ve been involved with, have defined mild traumatic brain injury as a more permanent process,” he said.

The study was supported by the US Department of Defense and National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — Paramagnetic rim lesions (PRLs), which have been gaining attention as potentially useful prognostic biomarkers in multiple sclerosis (MS), predict accelerated cognitive loss, according to one of numerous PRL studies at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

“We think this supports other evidence that PRLs are going to be a useful biomarker for MS,” reported Susan Gauthier, DO, an associate professor of neurology and radiology at Weill Cornell University in New York City.

In a simple study, patients with PRLs at baseline were compared with patients without PRLs over a 4-year period, showing that baseline PRLs correlated with worse cognitive function over time.

Of the study cohort, with a median age of 42 years, 5 patients had clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), 81 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 5 had secondary progressive MS. On baseline MRI, 41% of patients had PRLs.

Cognitive function was tracked over time with the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS). The components include the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT), and the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test (BVMT).

Univariate linear model relationships were used to look for a relationship between baseline PRLs and cognitive function. Multiple linear models were performed “with all possible iterations” to further explore the most significant variables. At baseline, no differences were seen in any cognitive test between those with or without PRLs.
 

Cognitive Function Changes at 4 Years

Those with at least one PRL had significantly lower SDMT (P = 0.046) and BVLT (P = 0.0292) at 4 years. There was no significant difference for CVLT scores.

The findings are consistent with the potential for PRLs to serve “as an imaging marker to identify MS patients at risk for cognitive decline,” said Hannah Schwartz, BA, a mentee of Dr. Gauthier and senior clinical research coordinator in the Department of Neurology at Weill Cornell. Ms. Schwartz presented the data at ACTRIMS Forum Cutting Edge symposium.

Over the past 10 years, there has been a growing body of evidence that the presence of PRLs, which are generally described as a spot of demyelination in the central nervous system surrounded by a rim of iron-laden immune cells such as microglia and macrophages, are prognostically important. The sizable number of studies at the ACTRIMS meeting on PRLs, which so far appear to be unique to MS, suggests the field is maturing.
 

Routine Measurement of PRLs Is Feasible

One set of data from the CAVS-MS study suggest that routine measurement of this biomarker can be integrated into routine imaging. CAVS-MS is a 2-year international multicenter evaluation of MS biomarkers with 11 participating sites that has collected PRL data on 420 patients.

Overall, PRLs were identified in 39% of these patients. However, patients were divided by typical versus atypical presentation, defined by such factors as an uncharacteristic pattern of attacks, accelerated progression, or radiologically isolated lesions. Among the 201 patients with a typical presentation, at least 1 PRL was found in 53%. Among the 219 with atypical presentations, PRLs were seen in only 26%.

The greater rate of PRLs and the greater number of PRLs per positive patient in the typical presentation group (median 3 vs 2) were highly significant (both P < .0001), reported Brian Renner, MD, a research associate in the neuroimaging program, Department of Neurology, Cedars-Sinai Hospital, Los Angeles.

In this analysis, the PRLs were identified by a single experienced rater with T2- and T1-weighted imaging using 2024 North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (NAIMS) criteria for PRL. These criteria were published earlier this year in Brain.

One message from this study is that “PRL measurement in a large multicenter cohort is feasible,” according to Dr. Renner. This is not only important based on the potential role of PRLs as a prognostic biomarker but also for diagnosis, given the fact that PRLs when present appear to confirm a diagnosis of MS.

Misdiagnosis of MS continues to be a problem, and Dr. Renner said that these appear “to be capable of differentiating MS lesions from non-MS disease mimics.” However, he stated that further validation studies are needed.
 

Can PRLs Be Prevented or Reversed?

The data on PRLs have generated interest in whether they can be prevented or reversed once they appear. This might be dependent on first determining who is at risk. Another study presented at ACTRIMS suggested that it might not be complex. Lesion size might be critical.

In this study, 233 images were evaluated in 64 patients participating in an observational study at the UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts.

In a univariable analysis, a long list of patient factors, disease characteristics, and imaging characteristics correlated with an increased risk of develop PRLs. These included patient age, disease duration, lesion volume, enhancement pattern (ring vs nodular), and use of disease modifying therapies.

When a regression analysis of these factors was performed, “none of the predictive factors on the univariable analyses were significant after including lesion size in the model,” reported Mustafa Al Gburi, MD, a fellow in neuroimaging at UMass.

While his data did show that exposure to steroids did not appear to reduce risk of developing PRLs, he is now running follow-up to see if specific disease-modifying therapies are more or less preventive for the development of PRL. Because of the limited number of patients and follow-up, it is now too early to tell.

Overall, the risk of PRLs appears to grow substantially at a lesion size of greater than 11 mm, Dr. Al Gburi reported. He believes that this might be “a simple bedside marker to determine patients at future risk of chronic active lesions.”

PRLs might not just be a diagnostic and prognostic tool. Dr. Gauthier said that PRLs are at least a theoretical treatment target. While their immediate promise is in monitoring disease, she thinks the evidence would predict a benefit if PRLs could be prevented or reversed.

Dr. Gauthier reports financial relationships with Genentech, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Mallinckrodt. Dr. Renner and Dr. Al Gburi report no potential conflicts of interest.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — Paramagnetic rim lesions (PRLs), which have been gaining attention as potentially useful prognostic biomarkers in multiple sclerosis (MS), predict accelerated cognitive loss, according to one of numerous PRL studies at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

“We think this supports other evidence that PRLs are going to be a useful biomarker for MS,” reported Susan Gauthier, DO, an associate professor of neurology and radiology at Weill Cornell University in New York City.

In a simple study, patients with PRLs at baseline were compared with patients without PRLs over a 4-year period, showing that baseline PRLs correlated with worse cognitive function over time.

Of the study cohort, with a median age of 42 years, 5 patients had clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), 81 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 5 had secondary progressive MS. On baseline MRI, 41% of patients had PRLs.

Cognitive function was tracked over time with the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS). The components include the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT), and the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test (BVMT).

Univariate linear model relationships were used to look for a relationship between baseline PRLs and cognitive function. Multiple linear models were performed “with all possible iterations” to further explore the most significant variables. At baseline, no differences were seen in any cognitive test between those with or without PRLs.
 

Cognitive Function Changes at 4 Years

Those with at least one PRL had significantly lower SDMT (P = 0.046) and BVLT (P = 0.0292) at 4 years. There was no significant difference for CVLT scores.

The findings are consistent with the potential for PRLs to serve “as an imaging marker to identify MS patients at risk for cognitive decline,” said Hannah Schwartz, BA, a mentee of Dr. Gauthier and senior clinical research coordinator in the Department of Neurology at Weill Cornell. Ms. Schwartz presented the data at ACTRIMS Forum Cutting Edge symposium.

Over the past 10 years, there has been a growing body of evidence that the presence of PRLs, which are generally described as a spot of demyelination in the central nervous system surrounded by a rim of iron-laden immune cells such as microglia and macrophages, are prognostically important. The sizable number of studies at the ACTRIMS meeting on PRLs, which so far appear to be unique to MS, suggests the field is maturing.
 

Routine Measurement of PRLs Is Feasible

One set of data from the CAVS-MS study suggest that routine measurement of this biomarker can be integrated into routine imaging. CAVS-MS is a 2-year international multicenter evaluation of MS biomarkers with 11 participating sites that has collected PRL data on 420 patients.

Overall, PRLs were identified in 39% of these patients. However, patients were divided by typical versus atypical presentation, defined by such factors as an uncharacteristic pattern of attacks, accelerated progression, or radiologically isolated lesions. Among the 201 patients with a typical presentation, at least 1 PRL was found in 53%. Among the 219 with atypical presentations, PRLs were seen in only 26%.

The greater rate of PRLs and the greater number of PRLs per positive patient in the typical presentation group (median 3 vs 2) were highly significant (both P < .0001), reported Brian Renner, MD, a research associate in the neuroimaging program, Department of Neurology, Cedars-Sinai Hospital, Los Angeles.

In this analysis, the PRLs were identified by a single experienced rater with T2- and T1-weighted imaging using 2024 North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (NAIMS) criteria for PRL. These criteria were published earlier this year in Brain.

One message from this study is that “PRL measurement in a large multicenter cohort is feasible,” according to Dr. Renner. This is not only important based on the potential role of PRLs as a prognostic biomarker but also for diagnosis, given the fact that PRLs when present appear to confirm a diagnosis of MS.

Misdiagnosis of MS continues to be a problem, and Dr. Renner said that these appear “to be capable of differentiating MS lesions from non-MS disease mimics.” However, he stated that further validation studies are needed.
 

Can PRLs Be Prevented or Reversed?

The data on PRLs have generated interest in whether they can be prevented or reversed once they appear. This might be dependent on first determining who is at risk. Another study presented at ACTRIMS suggested that it might not be complex. Lesion size might be critical.

In this study, 233 images were evaluated in 64 patients participating in an observational study at the UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts.

In a univariable analysis, a long list of patient factors, disease characteristics, and imaging characteristics correlated with an increased risk of develop PRLs. These included patient age, disease duration, lesion volume, enhancement pattern (ring vs nodular), and use of disease modifying therapies.

When a regression analysis of these factors was performed, “none of the predictive factors on the univariable analyses were significant after including lesion size in the model,” reported Mustafa Al Gburi, MD, a fellow in neuroimaging at UMass.

While his data did show that exposure to steroids did not appear to reduce risk of developing PRLs, he is now running follow-up to see if specific disease-modifying therapies are more or less preventive for the development of PRL. Because of the limited number of patients and follow-up, it is now too early to tell.

Overall, the risk of PRLs appears to grow substantially at a lesion size of greater than 11 mm, Dr. Al Gburi reported. He believes that this might be “a simple bedside marker to determine patients at future risk of chronic active lesions.”

PRLs might not just be a diagnostic and prognostic tool. Dr. Gauthier said that PRLs are at least a theoretical treatment target. While their immediate promise is in monitoring disease, she thinks the evidence would predict a benefit if PRLs could be prevented or reversed.

Dr. Gauthier reports financial relationships with Genentech, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Mallinckrodt. Dr. Renner and Dr. Al Gburi report no potential conflicts of interest.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — Paramagnetic rim lesions (PRLs), which have been gaining attention as potentially useful prognostic biomarkers in multiple sclerosis (MS), predict accelerated cognitive loss, according to one of numerous PRL studies at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

“We think this supports other evidence that PRLs are going to be a useful biomarker for MS,” reported Susan Gauthier, DO, an associate professor of neurology and radiology at Weill Cornell University in New York City.

In a simple study, patients with PRLs at baseline were compared with patients without PRLs over a 4-year period, showing that baseline PRLs correlated with worse cognitive function over time.

Of the study cohort, with a median age of 42 years, 5 patients had clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), 81 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 5 had secondary progressive MS. On baseline MRI, 41% of patients had PRLs.

Cognitive function was tracked over time with the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS). The components include the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT), and the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test (BVMT).

Univariate linear model relationships were used to look for a relationship between baseline PRLs and cognitive function. Multiple linear models were performed “with all possible iterations” to further explore the most significant variables. At baseline, no differences were seen in any cognitive test between those with or without PRLs.
 

Cognitive Function Changes at 4 Years

Those with at least one PRL had significantly lower SDMT (P = 0.046) and BVLT (P = 0.0292) at 4 years. There was no significant difference for CVLT scores.

The findings are consistent with the potential for PRLs to serve “as an imaging marker to identify MS patients at risk for cognitive decline,” said Hannah Schwartz, BA, a mentee of Dr. Gauthier and senior clinical research coordinator in the Department of Neurology at Weill Cornell. Ms. Schwartz presented the data at ACTRIMS Forum Cutting Edge symposium.

Over the past 10 years, there has been a growing body of evidence that the presence of PRLs, which are generally described as a spot of demyelination in the central nervous system surrounded by a rim of iron-laden immune cells such as microglia and macrophages, are prognostically important. The sizable number of studies at the ACTRIMS meeting on PRLs, which so far appear to be unique to MS, suggests the field is maturing.
 

Routine Measurement of PRLs Is Feasible

One set of data from the CAVS-MS study suggest that routine measurement of this biomarker can be integrated into routine imaging. CAVS-MS is a 2-year international multicenter evaluation of MS biomarkers with 11 participating sites that has collected PRL data on 420 patients.

Overall, PRLs were identified in 39% of these patients. However, patients were divided by typical versus atypical presentation, defined by such factors as an uncharacteristic pattern of attacks, accelerated progression, or radiologically isolated lesions. Among the 201 patients with a typical presentation, at least 1 PRL was found in 53%. Among the 219 with atypical presentations, PRLs were seen in only 26%.

The greater rate of PRLs and the greater number of PRLs per positive patient in the typical presentation group (median 3 vs 2) were highly significant (both P < .0001), reported Brian Renner, MD, a research associate in the neuroimaging program, Department of Neurology, Cedars-Sinai Hospital, Los Angeles.

In this analysis, the PRLs were identified by a single experienced rater with T2- and T1-weighted imaging using 2024 North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (NAIMS) criteria for PRL. These criteria were published earlier this year in Brain.

One message from this study is that “PRL measurement in a large multicenter cohort is feasible,” according to Dr. Renner. This is not only important based on the potential role of PRLs as a prognostic biomarker but also for diagnosis, given the fact that PRLs when present appear to confirm a diagnosis of MS.

Misdiagnosis of MS continues to be a problem, and Dr. Renner said that these appear “to be capable of differentiating MS lesions from non-MS disease mimics.” However, he stated that further validation studies are needed.
 

Can PRLs Be Prevented or Reversed?

The data on PRLs have generated interest in whether they can be prevented or reversed once they appear. This might be dependent on first determining who is at risk. Another study presented at ACTRIMS suggested that it might not be complex. Lesion size might be critical.

In this study, 233 images were evaluated in 64 patients participating in an observational study at the UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts.

In a univariable analysis, a long list of patient factors, disease characteristics, and imaging characteristics correlated with an increased risk of develop PRLs. These included patient age, disease duration, lesion volume, enhancement pattern (ring vs nodular), and use of disease modifying therapies.

When a regression analysis of these factors was performed, “none of the predictive factors on the univariable analyses were significant after including lesion size in the model,” reported Mustafa Al Gburi, MD, a fellow in neuroimaging at UMass.

While his data did show that exposure to steroids did not appear to reduce risk of developing PRLs, he is now running follow-up to see if specific disease-modifying therapies are more or less preventive for the development of PRL. Because of the limited number of patients and follow-up, it is now too early to tell.

Overall, the risk of PRLs appears to grow substantially at a lesion size of greater than 11 mm, Dr. Al Gburi reported. He believes that this might be “a simple bedside marker to determine patients at future risk of chronic active lesions.”

PRLs might not just be a diagnostic and prognostic tool. Dr. Gauthier said that PRLs are at least a theoretical treatment target. While their immediate promise is in monitoring disease, she thinks the evidence would predict a benefit if PRLs could be prevented or reversed.

Dr. Gauthier reports financial relationships with Genentech, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Mallinckrodt. Dr. Renner and Dr. Al Gburi report no potential conflicts of interest.