User login
In Some Patients, Antiseizure Medications Can Cause Severe Skin Reactions
according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.
“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”
To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.
Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions
Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.
DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.
Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.
When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.
Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
Identifying Those at Risk
With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”
Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.
Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.
Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”
Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.
according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.
“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”
To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.
Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions
Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.
DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.
Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.
When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.
Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
Identifying Those at Risk
With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”
Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.
Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.
Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”
Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.
according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.
“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”
To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.
Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions
Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.
DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.
Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.
When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.
Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
Identifying Those at Risk
With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”
Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.
Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.
Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”
Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.
FROM CURRENT TREATMENT OPTIONS IN NEUROLOGY
TBI Significantly Increases Mortality Rate Among Veterans With Epilepsy
, according to recent research published in Epilepsia.
In a retrospective cohort study, Ali Roghani, PhD, of the division of epidemiology at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, and colleagues evaluated 938,890 veterans between 2000 and 2019 in the Defense Health Agency and the Veterans Health Administration who served in the US military after the September 11 attacks. Overall, 27,436 veterans met criteria for a diagnosis of epilepsy, 264,890 had received a diagnosis for a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the remaining patients had neither epilepsy nor TBI.
Among the veterans with no epilepsy, 248,714 veterans had a TBI diagnosis, while in the group of patients with epilepsy, 10,358 veterans experienced a TBI before their epilepsy diagnosis, 1598 were diagnosed with a TBI within 6 months of epilepsy, and 4310 veterans had a TBI 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis. The researchers assessed all-cause mortality in each group, calculating cumulative mortality rates compared with the group of veterans who had no TBI and no epilepsy diagnosis.
Dr. Roghani and colleagues found a significantly higher mortality rate among veterans who developed epilepsy compared with a control group with neither epilepsy nor TBI (6.26% vs. 1.12%; P < .01), with a majority of veterans in the group who died being White (67.4%) men (89.9%). Compared with veterans who were deceased, nondeceased veterans were significantly more likely to have a history of being deployed (70.7% vs. 64.8%; P < .001), were less likely to be in the army (52.2% vs. 55.0%; P < .001), and were more likely to reach the rank of officer or warrant officer (8.1% vs. 7.6%; P = .014).
There were also significant differences in clinical characteristics between nondeceased and deceased veterans, including a higher rate of substance abuse disorder, smoking history, cardiovascular disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cancer, liver disease, kidney disease, or other injury as well as overdose, suicidal ideation, and homelessness. “Most clinical conditions were significantly different between deceased and nondeceased in part due to the large cohort size,” the researchers said.
After performing Cox regression analyses, the researchers found a higher mortality risk in veterans with epilepsy and/or TBIs among those who developed a TBI within 6 months of an epilepsy diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR], 5.02; 95% CI, 4.21-5.99), had a TBI prior to epilepsy (HR, 4.25; 95% CI, 3.89-4.58), had epilepsy alone (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 3.67-4.36), had a TBI more than 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis (HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.17-2.85), and those who had epilepsy alone (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.36) compared with veterans who had neither epilepsy nor a TBI.
“The temporal relationship with TBI that occurred within 6 months after epilepsy diagnosis may suggest an increased vulnerability to accidents, severe injuries, or TBI resulting from seizures, potentially elevating mortality risk,” Dr. Roghani and colleagues wrote.
The researchers said the results “raise concerns” about the subgroup of patients who are diagnosed with epilepsy close to experiencing a TBI.
“Our results provide information regarding the temporal relationship between epilepsy and TBI regarding mortality in a cohort of post-9/11 veterans, which highlights the need for enhanced primary prevention, such as more access to health care among people with epilepsy and TBI,” they said. “Given the rising incidence of TBI in both the military and civilian populations, these findings suggest close monitoring might be crucial to develop effective prevention strategies for long-term complications, particularly [post-traumatic epilepsy].”
Reevaluating the Treatment of Epilepsy
Juliann Paolicchi, MD, a neurologist and member of the epilepsy team at Northwell Health in New York, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that TBIs have been studied more closely since the beginning of conflicts in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Afghanistan, where “newer artillery causes more diffuse traumatic injury to the brain and the body than the effects of more typical weaponry.”
The study by Roghani and colleagues, she said, “is groundbreaking in that it looks at the connection and timing of these two disruptive forces, epilepsy and TBI, on the brain,” she said. “The study reveals that timing is everything: The combination of two disrupting circuitry effects in proximity can have a deadly effect. The summation is greater than either alone in veterans, and has significant effects on the brain’s ability to sustain the functions that keep us alive.”
The 6 months following either a diagnosis of epilepsy or TBI is “crucial,” Dr. Paolicchi noted. “Military and private citizens should be closely monitored during this period, and the results suggest they should refrain from activities that could predispose to further brain injury.”
In addition, current standards for treatment of epilepsy may need to be reevaluated, she said. “Patients are not always treated with a seizure medication after a first seizure, but perhaps, especially in patients at higher risk for brain injury such as the military and athletes, that policy warrants further examination.”
The findings by Roghani and colleagues may also extend to other groups, such as evaluating athletes after a concussion, patients after they are in a motor vehicle accident, and infants with traumatic brain injury, Dr. Paolicchi said. “The results suggest a reexamining of the proximity [of TBI] and epilepsy in these and other areas,” she noted.
The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of research support and other financial compensation from AbbVie, Biohaven, CURE, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Eisai, Engage, National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, SCS Consulting, Sunovion, and UCB. This study was supported by funding from the Department of Defense, VA Health Systems, and the VA HSR&D Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences Center of Innovation. Dr. Paolicchi reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
, according to recent research published in Epilepsia.
In a retrospective cohort study, Ali Roghani, PhD, of the division of epidemiology at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, and colleagues evaluated 938,890 veterans between 2000 and 2019 in the Defense Health Agency and the Veterans Health Administration who served in the US military after the September 11 attacks. Overall, 27,436 veterans met criteria for a diagnosis of epilepsy, 264,890 had received a diagnosis for a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the remaining patients had neither epilepsy nor TBI.
Among the veterans with no epilepsy, 248,714 veterans had a TBI diagnosis, while in the group of patients with epilepsy, 10,358 veterans experienced a TBI before their epilepsy diagnosis, 1598 were diagnosed with a TBI within 6 months of epilepsy, and 4310 veterans had a TBI 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis. The researchers assessed all-cause mortality in each group, calculating cumulative mortality rates compared with the group of veterans who had no TBI and no epilepsy diagnosis.
Dr. Roghani and colleagues found a significantly higher mortality rate among veterans who developed epilepsy compared with a control group with neither epilepsy nor TBI (6.26% vs. 1.12%; P < .01), with a majority of veterans in the group who died being White (67.4%) men (89.9%). Compared with veterans who were deceased, nondeceased veterans were significantly more likely to have a history of being deployed (70.7% vs. 64.8%; P < .001), were less likely to be in the army (52.2% vs. 55.0%; P < .001), and were more likely to reach the rank of officer or warrant officer (8.1% vs. 7.6%; P = .014).
There were also significant differences in clinical characteristics between nondeceased and deceased veterans, including a higher rate of substance abuse disorder, smoking history, cardiovascular disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cancer, liver disease, kidney disease, or other injury as well as overdose, suicidal ideation, and homelessness. “Most clinical conditions were significantly different between deceased and nondeceased in part due to the large cohort size,” the researchers said.
After performing Cox regression analyses, the researchers found a higher mortality risk in veterans with epilepsy and/or TBIs among those who developed a TBI within 6 months of an epilepsy diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR], 5.02; 95% CI, 4.21-5.99), had a TBI prior to epilepsy (HR, 4.25; 95% CI, 3.89-4.58), had epilepsy alone (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 3.67-4.36), had a TBI more than 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis (HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.17-2.85), and those who had epilepsy alone (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.36) compared with veterans who had neither epilepsy nor a TBI.
“The temporal relationship with TBI that occurred within 6 months after epilepsy diagnosis may suggest an increased vulnerability to accidents, severe injuries, or TBI resulting from seizures, potentially elevating mortality risk,” Dr. Roghani and colleagues wrote.
The researchers said the results “raise concerns” about the subgroup of patients who are diagnosed with epilepsy close to experiencing a TBI.
“Our results provide information regarding the temporal relationship between epilepsy and TBI regarding mortality in a cohort of post-9/11 veterans, which highlights the need for enhanced primary prevention, such as more access to health care among people with epilepsy and TBI,” they said. “Given the rising incidence of TBI in both the military and civilian populations, these findings suggest close monitoring might be crucial to develop effective prevention strategies for long-term complications, particularly [post-traumatic epilepsy].”
Reevaluating the Treatment of Epilepsy
Juliann Paolicchi, MD, a neurologist and member of the epilepsy team at Northwell Health in New York, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that TBIs have been studied more closely since the beginning of conflicts in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Afghanistan, where “newer artillery causes more diffuse traumatic injury to the brain and the body than the effects of more typical weaponry.”
The study by Roghani and colleagues, she said, “is groundbreaking in that it looks at the connection and timing of these two disruptive forces, epilepsy and TBI, on the brain,” she said. “The study reveals that timing is everything: The combination of two disrupting circuitry effects in proximity can have a deadly effect. The summation is greater than either alone in veterans, and has significant effects on the brain’s ability to sustain the functions that keep us alive.”
The 6 months following either a diagnosis of epilepsy or TBI is “crucial,” Dr. Paolicchi noted. “Military and private citizens should be closely monitored during this period, and the results suggest they should refrain from activities that could predispose to further brain injury.”
In addition, current standards for treatment of epilepsy may need to be reevaluated, she said. “Patients are not always treated with a seizure medication after a first seizure, but perhaps, especially in patients at higher risk for brain injury such as the military and athletes, that policy warrants further examination.”
The findings by Roghani and colleagues may also extend to other groups, such as evaluating athletes after a concussion, patients after they are in a motor vehicle accident, and infants with traumatic brain injury, Dr. Paolicchi said. “The results suggest a reexamining of the proximity [of TBI] and epilepsy in these and other areas,” she noted.
The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of research support and other financial compensation from AbbVie, Biohaven, CURE, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Eisai, Engage, National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, SCS Consulting, Sunovion, and UCB. This study was supported by funding from the Department of Defense, VA Health Systems, and the VA HSR&D Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences Center of Innovation. Dr. Paolicchi reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
, according to recent research published in Epilepsia.
In a retrospective cohort study, Ali Roghani, PhD, of the division of epidemiology at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, and colleagues evaluated 938,890 veterans between 2000 and 2019 in the Defense Health Agency and the Veterans Health Administration who served in the US military after the September 11 attacks. Overall, 27,436 veterans met criteria for a diagnosis of epilepsy, 264,890 had received a diagnosis for a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the remaining patients had neither epilepsy nor TBI.
Among the veterans with no epilepsy, 248,714 veterans had a TBI diagnosis, while in the group of patients with epilepsy, 10,358 veterans experienced a TBI before their epilepsy diagnosis, 1598 were diagnosed with a TBI within 6 months of epilepsy, and 4310 veterans had a TBI 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis. The researchers assessed all-cause mortality in each group, calculating cumulative mortality rates compared with the group of veterans who had no TBI and no epilepsy diagnosis.
Dr. Roghani and colleagues found a significantly higher mortality rate among veterans who developed epilepsy compared with a control group with neither epilepsy nor TBI (6.26% vs. 1.12%; P < .01), with a majority of veterans in the group who died being White (67.4%) men (89.9%). Compared with veterans who were deceased, nondeceased veterans were significantly more likely to have a history of being deployed (70.7% vs. 64.8%; P < .001), were less likely to be in the army (52.2% vs. 55.0%; P < .001), and were more likely to reach the rank of officer or warrant officer (8.1% vs. 7.6%; P = .014).
There were also significant differences in clinical characteristics between nondeceased and deceased veterans, including a higher rate of substance abuse disorder, smoking history, cardiovascular disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cancer, liver disease, kidney disease, or other injury as well as overdose, suicidal ideation, and homelessness. “Most clinical conditions were significantly different between deceased and nondeceased in part due to the large cohort size,” the researchers said.
After performing Cox regression analyses, the researchers found a higher mortality risk in veterans with epilepsy and/or TBIs among those who developed a TBI within 6 months of an epilepsy diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR], 5.02; 95% CI, 4.21-5.99), had a TBI prior to epilepsy (HR, 4.25; 95% CI, 3.89-4.58), had epilepsy alone (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 3.67-4.36), had a TBI more than 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis (HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.17-2.85), and those who had epilepsy alone (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.36) compared with veterans who had neither epilepsy nor a TBI.
“The temporal relationship with TBI that occurred within 6 months after epilepsy diagnosis may suggest an increased vulnerability to accidents, severe injuries, or TBI resulting from seizures, potentially elevating mortality risk,” Dr. Roghani and colleagues wrote.
The researchers said the results “raise concerns” about the subgroup of patients who are diagnosed with epilepsy close to experiencing a TBI.
“Our results provide information regarding the temporal relationship between epilepsy and TBI regarding mortality in a cohort of post-9/11 veterans, which highlights the need for enhanced primary prevention, such as more access to health care among people with epilepsy and TBI,” they said. “Given the rising incidence of TBI in both the military and civilian populations, these findings suggest close monitoring might be crucial to develop effective prevention strategies for long-term complications, particularly [post-traumatic epilepsy].”
Reevaluating the Treatment of Epilepsy
Juliann Paolicchi, MD, a neurologist and member of the epilepsy team at Northwell Health in New York, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that TBIs have been studied more closely since the beginning of conflicts in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Afghanistan, where “newer artillery causes more diffuse traumatic injury to the brain and the body than the effects of more typical weaponry.”
The study by Roghani and colleagues, she said, “is groundbreaking in that it looks at the connection and timing of these two disruptive forces, epilepsy and TBI, on the brain,” she said. “The study reveals that timing is everything: The combination of two disrupting circuitry effects in proximity can have a deadly effect. The summation is greater than either alone in veterans, and has significant effects on the brain’s ability to sustain the functions that keep us alive.”
The 6 months following either a diagnosis of epilepsy or TBI is “crucial,” Dr. Paolicchi noted. “Military and private citizens should be closely monitored during this period, and the results suggest they should refrain from activities that could predispose to further brain injury.”
In addition, current standards for treatment of epilepsy may need to be reevaluated, she said. “Patients are not always treated with a seizure medication after a first seizure, but perhaps, especially in patients at higher risk for brain injury such as the military and athletes, that policy warrants further examination.”
The findings by Roghani and colleagues may also extend to other groups, such as evaluating athletes after a concussion, patients after they are in a motor vehicle accident, and infants with traumatic brain injury, Dr. Paolicchi said. “The results suggest a reexamining of the proximity [of TBI] and epilepsy in these and other areas,” she noted.
The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of research support and other financial compensation from AbbVie, Biohaven, CURE, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Eisai, Engage, National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, SCS Consulting, Sunovion, and UCB. This study was supported by funding from the Department of Defense, VA Health Systems, and the VA HSR&D Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences Center of Innovation. Dr. Paolicchi reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM EPILEPSIA
Night Owl or Lark? The Answer May Affect Cognition
new research suggests.
“Rather than just being personal preferences, these chronotypes could impact our cognitive function,” said study investigator, Raha West, MBChB, with Imperial College London, London, England, in a statement.
But the researchers also urged caution when interpreting the findings.
“It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean all morning people have worse cognitive performance. The findings reflect an overall trend where the majority might lean toward better cognition in the evening types,” Dr. West added.
In addition, across the board, getting the recommended 7-9 hours of nightly sleep was best for cognitive function, and sleeping for less than 7 or more than 9 hours had detrimental effects on brain function regardless of whether an individual was a night owl or lark.
The study was published online in BMJ Public Health.
A UK Biobank Cohort Study
The findings are based on a cross-sectional analysis of 26,820 adults aged 53-86 years from the UK Biobank database, who were categorized into two cohorts.
Cohort 1 had 10,067 participants (56% women) who completed four cognitive tests measuring fluid intelligence/reasoning, pairs matching, reaction time, and prospective memory. Cohort 2 had 16,753 participants (56% women) who completed two cognitive assessments (pairs matching and reaction time).
Participants self-reported sleep duration, chronotype, and quality. Cognitive test scores were evaluated against sleep parameters and health and lifestyle factors including sex, age, vascular and cardiac conditions, diabetes,alcohol use, smoking habits, and body mass index.
The results revealed a positive association between normal sleep duration (7-9 hours) and cognitive scores in Cohort 1 (beta, 0.0567), while extended sleep duration negatively impacted scores across in Cohort 1 and 2 (beta, –0.188 and beta, –0.2619, respectively).
An individual’s preference for evening or morning activity correlated strongly with their test scores. In particular, night owls consistently performed better on cognitive tests than early birds.
“While understanding and working with your natural sleep tendencies is essential, it’s equally important to remember to get just enough sleep, not too long or too short,” Dr. West noted. “This is crucial for keeping your brain healthy and functioning at its best.”
Contrary to some previous findings, the study did not find a significant relationship between sleep, sleepiness/insomnia, and cognitive performance. This may be because specific aspects of insomnia, such as severity and chronicity, as well as comorbid conditions need to be considered, the investigators wrote.
They added that age and diabetes consistently emerged as negative predictors of cognitive functioning across both cohorts, in line with previous research.
Limitations of the study include the cross-sectional design, which limits causal inferences; the possibility of residual confounding; and reliance on self-reported sleep data.
Also, the study did not adjust for educational attainment, a factor potentially influential on cognitive performance and sleep patterns, because of incomplete data. The study also did not factor in depression and social isolation, which have been shown to increase the risk for cognitive decline.
No Real-World Implications
Several outside experts offered their perspective on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.
The study provides “interesting insights” into the difference in memory and thinking in people who identify themselves as a “morning” or “evening” person, Jacqui Hanley, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, said in the statement.
However, without a detailed picture of what is going on in the brain, it’s not clear whether being a morning or evening person affects memory and thinking or whether a decline in cognition is causing changes to sleeping patterns, Dr. Hanley added.
Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, CPsychol, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, cautioned that there are “multiple potential reasons” for these associations.
“Therefore, there are no implications in my view for the real world. I fear that the general public will not be able to understand that and will change their sleep pattern, while this study does not give any evidence that this will lead to any benefit,” Dr. Cohen Kadosh said.
Jessica Chelekis, PhD, MBA, a sleep expert from Brunel University London, Uxbridge, England, said that the “main takeaway should be that the cultural belief that early risers are more productive than ‘night owls’ does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.”
“While everyone should aim to get good-quality sleep each night, we should also try to be aware of what time of day we are at our (cognitive) best and work in ways that suit us. Night owls, in particular, should not be shamed into fitting a stereotype that favors an ‘early to bed, early to rise’ practice,” Dr. Chelekis said.
Funding for the study was provided by the Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine in collaboration with Imperial College London. Dr. Hanley, Dr. Cohen Kadosh, and Dr. Chelekis have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
“Rather than just being personal preferences, these chronotypes could impact our cognitive function,” said study investigator, Raha West, MBChB, with Imperial College London, London, England, in a statement.
But the researchers also urged caution when interpreting the findings.
“It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean all morning people have worse cognitive performance. The findings reflect an overall trend where the majority might lean toward better cognition in the evening types,” Dr. West added.
In addition, across the board, getting the recommended 7-9 hours of nightly sleep was best for cognitive function, and sleeping for less than 7 or more than 9 hours had detrimental effects on brain function regardless of whether an individual was a night owl or lark.
The study was published online in BMJ Public Health.
A UK Biobank Cohort Study
The findings are based on a cross-sectional analysis of 26,820 adults aged 53-86 years from the UK Biobank database, who were categorized into two cohorts.
Cohort 1 had 10,067 participants (56% women) who completed four cognitive tests measuring fluid intelligence/reasoning, pairs matching, reaction time, and prospective memory. Cohort 2 had 16,753 participants (56% women) who completed two cognitive assessments (pairs matching and reaction time).
Participants self-reported sleep duration, chronotype, and quality. Cognitive test scores were evaluated against sleep parameters and health and lifestyle factors including sex, age, vascular and cardiac conditions, diabetes,alcohol use, smoking habits, and body mass index.
The results revealed a positive association between normal sleep duration (7-9 hours) and cognitive scores in Cohort 1 (beta, 0.0567), while extended sleep duration negatively impacted scores across in Cohort 1 and 2 (beta, –0.188 and beta, –0.2619, respectively).
An individual’s preference for evening or morning activity correlated strongly with their test scores. In particular, night owls consistently performed better on cognitive tests than early birds.
“While understanding and working with your natural sleep tendencies is essential, it’s equally important to remember to get just enough sleep, not too long or too short,” Dr. West noted. “This is crucial for keeping your brain healthy and functioning at its best.”
Contrary to some previous findings, the study did not find a significant relationship between sleep, sleepiness/insomnia, and cognitive performance. This may be because specific aspects of insomnia, such as severity and chronicity, as well as comorbid conditions need to be considered, the investigators wrote.
They added that age and diabetes consistently emerged as negative predictors of cognitive functioning across both cohorts, in line with previous research.
Limitations of the study include the cross-sectional design, which limits causal inferences; the possibility of residual confounding; and reliance on self-reported sleep data.
Also, the study did not adjust for educational attainment, a factor potentially influential on cognitive performance and sleep patterns, because of incomplete data. The study also did not factor in depression and social isolation, which have been shown to increase the risk for cognitive decline.
No Real-World Implications
Several outside experts offered their perspective on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.
The study provides “interesting insights” into the difference in memory and thinking in people who identify themselves as a “morning” or “evening” person, Jacqui Hanley, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, said in the statement.
However, without a detailed picture of what is going on in the brain, it’s not clear whether being a morning or evening person affects memory and thinking or whether a decline in cognition is causing changes to sleeping patterns, Dr. Hanley added.
Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, CPsychol, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, cautioned that there are “multiple potential reasons” for these associations.
“Therefore, there are no implications in my view for the real world. I fear that the general public will not be able to understand that and will change their sleep pattern, while this study does not give any evidence that this will lead to any benefit,” Dr. Cohen Kadosh said.
Jessica Chelekis, PhD, MBA, a sleep expert from Brunel University London, Uxbridge, England, said that the “main takeaway should be that the cultural belief that early risers are more productive than ‘night owls’ does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.”
“While everyone should aim to get good-quality sleep each night, we should also try to be aware of what time of day we are at our (cognitive) best and work in ways that suit us. Night owls, in particular, should not be shamed into fitting a stereotype that favors an ‘early to bed, early to rise’ practice,” Dr. Chelekis said.
Funding for the study was provided by the Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine in collaboration with Imperial College London. Dr. Hanley, Dr. Cohen Kadosh, and Dr. Chelekis have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
“Rather than just being personal preferences, these chronotypes could impact our cognitive function,” said study investigator, Raha West, MBChB, with Imperial College London, London, England, in a statement.
But the researchers also urged caution when interpreting the findings.
“It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean all morning people have worse cognitive performance. The findings reflect an overall trend where the majority might lean toward better cognition in the evening types,” Dr. West added.
In addition, across the board, getting the recommended 7-9 hours of nightly sleep was best for cognitive function, and sleeping for less than 7 or more than 9 hours had detrimental effects on brain function regardless of whether an individual was a night owl or lark.
The study was published online in BMJ Public Health.
A UK Biobank Cohort Study
The findings are based on a cross-sectional analysis of 26,820 adults aged 53-86 years from the UK Biobank database, who were categorized into two cohorts.
Cohort 1 had 10,067 participants (56% women) who completed four cognitive tests measuring fluid intelligence/reasoning, pairs matching, reaction time, and prospective memory. Cohort 2 had 16,753 participants (56% women) who completed two cognitive assessments (pairs matching and reaction time).
Participants self-reported sleep duration, chronotype, and quality. Cognitive test scores were evaluated against sleep parameters and health and lifestyle factors including sex, age, vascular and cardiac conditions, diabetes,alcohol use, smoking habits, and body mass index.
The results revealed a positive association between normal sleep duration (7-9 hours) and cognitive scores in Cohort 1 (beta, 0.0567), while extended sleep duration negatively impacted scores across in Cohort 1 and 2 (beta, –0.188 and beta, –0.2619, respectively).
An individual’s preference for evening or morning activity correlated strongly with their test scores. In particular, night owls consistently performed better on cognitive tests than early birds.
“While understanding and working with your natural sleep tendencies is essential, it’s equally important to remember to get just enough sleep, not too long or too short,” Dr. West noted. “This is crucial for keeping your brain healthy and functioning at its best.”
Contrary to some previous findings, the study did not find a significant relationship between sleep, sleepiness/insomnia, and cognitive performance. This may be because specific aspects of insomnia, such as severity and chronicity, as well as comorbid conditions need to be considered, the investigators wrote.
They added that age and diabetes consistently emerged as negative predictors of cognitive functioning across both cohorts, in line with previous research.
Limitations of the study include the cross-sectional design, which limits causal inferences; the possibility of residual confounding; and reliance on self-reported sleep data.
Also, the study did not adjust for educational attainment, a factor potentially influential on cognitive performance and sleep patterns, because of incomplete data. The study also did not factor in depression and social isolation, which have been shown to increase the risk for cognitive decline.
No Real-World Implications
Several outside experts offered their perspective on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.
The study provides “interesting insights” into the difference in memory and thinking in people who identify themselves as a “morning” or “evening” person, Jacqui Hanley, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, said in the statement.
However, without a detailed picture of what is going on in the brain, it’s not clear whether being a morning or evening person affects memory and thinking or whether a decline in cognition is causing changes to sleeping patterns, Dr. Hanley added.
Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, CPsychol, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, cautioned that there are “multiple potential reasons” for these associations.
“Therefore, there are no implications in my view for the real world. I fear that the general public will not be able to understand that and will change their sleep pattern, while this study does not give any evidence that this will lead to any benefit,” Dr. Cohen Kadosh said.
Jessica Chelekis, PhD, MBA, a sleep expert from Brunel University London, Uxbridge, England, said that the “main takeaway should be that the cultural belief that early risers are more productive than ‘night owls’ does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.”
“While everyone should aim to get good-quality sleep each night, we should also try to be aware of what time of day we are at our (cognitive) best and work in ways that suit us. Night owls, in particular, should not be shamed into fitting a stereotype that favors an ‘early to bed, early to rise’ practice,” Dr. Chelekis said.
Funding for the study was provided by the Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine in collaboration with Imperial College London. Dr. Hanley, Dr. Cohen Kadosh, and Dr. Chelekis have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BMJ PUBLIC HEALTH
EMA Warns of Anaphylactic Reactions to MS Drug
Such reactions could occur even years after the start of treatment, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) warned.
Glatiramer acetate is a disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for relapsing MS that is given by injection.
The drug has been used for treating MS for more than 20 years, during which time, it has had a good safety profile. Common side effects are known to include vasodilation, arthralgia, anxiety, hypertonia, palpitations, and lipoatrophy.
A meeting of the EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC), held on July 8-11, considered evidence from an EU-wide review of all available data concerning anaphylactic reactions with glatiramer acetate. As a result, the committee concluded that the medicine is associated with a risk for anaphylactic reactions, which may occur shortly after administration or even months or years later.
Risk for Delays to Treatment
Cases involving the use of glatiramer acetate with a fatal outcome have been reported, PRAC noted.
The committee cautioned that because the initial symptoms could overlap with those of postinjection reaction, there was a risk for delay in identifying an anaphylactic reaction.
PRAC has sanctioned a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to inform healthcare professionals about the risk. Patients and caregivers should be advised of the signs and symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction and the need to seek emergency care if this should occur, the committee added. In the event of such a reaction, treatment with glatiramer acetate must be discontinued, PRAC stated.
Once adopted, the DHPC for glatiramer acetate will be disseminated to healthcare professionals by the marketing authorization holders.
Anaphylactic reactions associated with the use of glatiramer acetate have been noted in medical literature for some years. A letter by members of the department of neurology at Albert Ludwig University Freiburg, Freiburg im Bresigau, Germany, published in the journal European Neurology in 2011, detailed six cases of anaphylactoid or anaphylactic reactions in patients while they were undergoing treatment with glatiramer acetate.
The authors highlighted that in one of the cases, a grade 1 anaphylactic reaction occurred 3 months after treatment with the drug was initiated.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Such reactions could occur even years after the start of treatment, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) warned.
Glatiramer acetate is a disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for relapsing MS that is given by injection.
The drug has been used for treating MS for more than 20 years, during which time, it has had a good safety profile. Common side effects are known to include vasodilation, arthralgia, anxiety, hypertonia, palpitations, and lipoatrophy.
A meeting of the EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC), held on July 8-11, considered evidence from an EU-wide review of all available data concerning anaphylactic reactions with glatiramer acetate. As a result, the committee concluded that the medicine is associated with a risk for anaphylactic reactions, which may occur shortly after administration or even months or years later.
Risk for Delays to Treatment
Cases involving the use of glatiramer acetate with a fatal outcome have been reported, PRAC noted.
The committee cautioned that because the initial symptoms could overlap with those of postinjection reaction, there was a risk for delay in identifying an anaphylactic reaction.
PRAC has sanctioned a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to inform healthcare professionals about the risk. Patients and caregivers should be advised of the signs and symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction and the need to seek emergency care if this should occur, the committee added. In the event of such a reaction, treatment with glatiramer acetate must be discontinued, PRAC stated.
Once adopted, the DHPC for glatiramer acetate will be disseminated to healthcare professionals by the marketing authorization holders.
Anaphylactic reactions associated with the use of glatiramer acetate have been noted in medical literature for some years. A letter by members of the department of neurology at Albert Ludwig University Freiburg, Freiburg im Bresigau, Germany, published in the journal European Neurology in 2011, detailed six cases of anaphylactoid or anaphylactic reactions in patients while they were undergoing treatment with glatiramer acetate.
The authors highlighted that in one of the cases, a grade 1 anaphylactic reaction occurred 3 months after treatment with the drug was initiated.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Such reactions could occur even years after the start of treatment, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) warned.
Glatiramer acetate is a disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for relapsing MS that is given by injection.
The drug has been used for treating MS for more than 20 years, during which time, it has had a good safety profile. Common side effects are known to include vasodilation, arthralgia, anxiety, hypertonia, palpitations, and lipoatrophy.
A meeting of the EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC), held on July 8-11, considered evidence from an EU-wide review of all available data concerning anaphylactic reactions with glatiramer acetate. As a result, the committee concluded that the medicine is associated with a risk for anaphylactic reactions, which may occur shortly after administration or even months or years later.
Risk for Delays to Treatment
Cases involving the use of glatiramer acetate with a fatal outcome have been reported, PRAC noted.
The committee cautioned that because the initial symptoms could overlap with those of postinjection reaction, there was a risk for delay in identifying an anaphylactic reaction.
PRAC has sanctioned a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to inform healthcare professionals about the risk. Patients and caregivers should be advised of the signs and symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction and the need to seek emergency care if this should occur, the committee added. In the event of such a reaction, treatment with glatiramer acetate must be discontinued, PRAC stated.
Once adopted, the DHPC for glatiramer acetate will be disseminated to healthcare professionals by the marketing authorization holders.
Anaphylactic reactions associated with the use of glatiramer acetate have been noted in medical literature for some years. A letter by members of the department of neurology at Albert Ludwig University Freiburg, Freiburg im Bresigau, Germany, published in the journal European Neurology in 2011, detailed six cases of anaphylactoid or anaphylactic reactions in patients while they were undergoing treatment with glatiramer acetate.
The authors highlighted that in one of the cases, a grade 1 anaphylactic reaction occurred 3 months after treatment with the drug was initiated.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Gut Biomarkers Accurately Flag Autism Spectrum Disorder
, new research shows.
The findings could form the basis for development of a noninvasive diagnostic test for ASD and also provide novel therapeutic targets, wrote investigators, led by Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, with the Microbiota I-Center (MagIC), the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Their study was published online in Nature Microbiology.
Beyond Bacteria
The gut microbiome has been shown to play a central role in modulating the gut-brain axis, potentially influencing the development of ASD.
However, most studies in ASD have focused on the bacterial component of the microbiome. Whether nonbacterial microorganisms (such as gut archaea, fungi, and viruses) or function of the gut microbiome are altered in ASD remains unclear.
To investigate, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 1627 boys and girls aged 1-13 years with and without ASD from five cohorts in China.
After controlling for diet, medication, and comorbidity, they identified 14 archaea, 51 bacteria, 7 fungi, 18 viruses, 27 microbial genes, and 12 metabolic pathways that were altered in children with ASD.
Machine-learning models using single-kingdom panels (archaea, bacteria, fungi, viruses) achieved area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.68 to 0.87 in differentiating children with ASD from neurotypical control children.
A model based on a panel of 31 multikingdom and functional markers achieved “high predictive value” for ASD, achieving an AUC of 0.91, with comparable performance among boys and girls.
“The reproducible performance of the models across ages, sexes, and cohorts highlights their potential as promising diagnostic tools for ASD,” the investigators wrote.
They also noted that the accuracy of the model was largely driven by the biosynthesis pathways of ubiquinol-7 and thiamine diphosphate, which were less abundant in children with ASD, and may serve as therapeutic targets.
‘Exciting’ Possibilities
“This study broadens our understanding by including fungi, archaea, and viruses, where previous studies have largely focused on the role of gut bacteria in autism,” Bhismadev Chakrabarti, PhD, research director of the Centre for Autism at the University of Reading, United Kingdom, said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre.
“The results are broadly in line with previous studies that show reduced microbial diversity in autistic individuals. It also examines one of the largest samples seen in a study like this, which further strengthens the results,” Dr. Chakrabarti added.
He said this research may provide “new ways of detecting autism, if microbial markers turn out to strengthen the ability of genetic and behavioral tests to detect autism. A future platform that can combine genetic, microbial, and simple behavioral assessments could help address the detection gap.
“One limitation of this data is that it cannot assess any causal role for the microbiota in the development of autism,” Dr. Chakrabarti noted.
This study was supported by InnoHK, the Government of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, The D. H. Chen Foundation, and the New Cornerstone Science Foundation through the New Cornerstone Investigator Program. Dr. Ng has served as an advisory board member for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, and AbbVie; has received honoraria as a speaker for Ferring, Tillotts, Menarini, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda; is a scientific cofounder and shareholder of GenieBiome; receives patent royalties through her affiliated institutions; and is named as a co-inventor of patent applications that cover the therapeutic and diagnostic use of microbiome. Dr. Chakrabarti has no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows.
The findings could form the basis for development of a noninvasive diagnostic test for ASD and also provide novel therapeutic targets, wrote investigators, led by Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, with the Microbiota I-Center (MagIC), the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Their study was published online in Nature Microbiology.
Beyond Bacteria
The gut microbiome has been shown to play a central role in modulating the gut-brain axis, potentially influencing the development of ASD.
However, most studies in ASD have focused on the bacterial component of the microbiome. Whether nonbacterial microorganisms (such as gut archaea, fungi, and viruses) or function of the gut microbiome are altered in ASD remains unclear.
To investigate, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 1627 boys and girls aged 1-13 years with and without ASD from five cohorts in China.
After controlling for diet, medication, and comorbidity, they identified 14 archaea, 51 bacteria, 7 fungi, 18 viruses, 27 microbial genes, and 12 metabolic pathways that were altered in children with ASD.
Machine-learning models using single-kingdom panels (archaea, bacteria, fungi, viruses) achieved area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.68 to 0.87 in differentiating children with ASD from neurotypical control children.
A model based on a panel of 31 multikingdom and functional markers achieved “high predictive value” for ASD, achieving an AUC of 0.91, with comparable performance among boys and girls.
“The reproducible performance of the models across ages, sexes, and cohorts highlights their potential as promising diagnostic tools for ASD,” the investigators wrote.
They also noted that the accuracy of the model was largely driven by the biosynthesis pathways of ubiquinol-7 and thiamine diphosphate, which were less abundant in children with ASD, and may serve as therapeutic targets.
‘Exciting’ Possibilities
“This study broadens our understanding by including fungi, archaea, and viruses, where previous studies have largely focused on the role of gut bacteria in autism,” Bhismadev Chakrabarti, PhD, research director of the Centre for Autism at the University of Reading, United Kingdom, said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre.
“The results are broadly in line with previous studies that show reduced microbial diversity in autistic individuals. It also examines one of the largest samples seen in a study like this, which further strengthens the results,” Dr. Chakrabarti added.
He said this research may provide “new ways of detecting autism, if microbial markers turn out to strengthen the ability of genetic and behavioral tests to detect autism. A future platform that can combine genetic, microbial, and simple behavioral assessments could help address the detection gap.
“One limitation of this data is that it cannot assess any causal role for the microbiota in the development of autism,” Dr. Chakrabarti noted.
This study was supported by InnoHK, the Government of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, The D. H. Chen Foundation, and the New Cornerstone Science Foundation through the New Cornerstone Investigator Program. Dr. Ng has served as an advisory board member for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, and AbbVie; has received honoraria as a speaker for Ferring, Tillotts, Menarini, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda; is a scientific cofounder and shareholder of GenieBiome; receives patent royalties through her affiliated institutions; and is named as a co-inventor of patent applications that cover the therapeutic and diagnostic use of microbiome. Dr. Chakrabarti has no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows.
The findings could form the basis for development of a noninvasive diagnostic test for ASD and also provide novel therapeutic targets, wrote investigators, led by Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, with the Microbiota I-Center (MagIC), the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Their study was published online in Nature Microbiology.
Beyond Bacteria
The gut microbiome has been shown to play a central role in modulating the gut-brain axis, potentially influencing the development of ASD.
However, most studies in ASD have focused on the bacterial component of the microbiome. Whether nonbacterial microorganisms (such as gut archaea, fungi, and viruses) or function of the gut microbiome are altered in ASD remains unclear.
To investigate, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 1627 boys and girls aged 1-13 years with and without ASD from five cohorts in China.
After controlling for diet, medication, and comorbidity, they identified 14 archaea, 51 bacteria, 7 fungi, 18 viruses, 27 microbial genes, and 12 metabolic pathways that were altered in children with ASD.
Machine-learning models using single-kingdom panels (archaea, bacteria, fungi, viruses) achieved area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.68 to 0.87 in differentiating children with ASD from neurotypical control children.
A model based on a panel of 31 multikingdom and functional markers achieved “high predictive value” for ASD, achieving an AUC of 0.91, with comparable performance among boys and girls.
“The reproducible performance of the models across ages, sexes, and cohorts highlights their potential as promising diagnostic tools for ASD,” the investigators wrote.
They also noted that the accuracy of the model was largely driven by the biosynthesis pathways of ubiquinol-7 and thiamine diphosphate, which were less abundant in children with ASD, and may serve as therapeutic targets.
‘Exciting’ Possibilities
“This study broadens our understanding by including fungi, archaea, and viruses, where previous studies have largely focused on the role of gut bacteria in autism,” Bhismadev Chakrabarti, PhD, research director of the Centre for Autism at the University of Reading, United Kingdom, said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre.
“The results are broadly in line with previous studies that show reduced microbial diversity in autistic individuals. It also examines one of the largest samples seen in a study like this, which further strengthens the results,” Dr. Chakrabarti added.
He said this research may provide “new ways of detecting autism, if microbial markers turn out to strengthen the ability of genetic and behavioral tests to detect autism. A future platform that can combine genetic, microbial, and simple behavioral assessments could help address the detection gap.
“One limitation of this data is that it cannot assess any causal role for the microbiota in the development of autism,” Dr. Chakrabarti noted.
This study was supported by InnoHK, the Government of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, The D. H. Chen Foundation, and the New Cornerstone Science Foundation through the New Cornerstone Investigator Program. Dr. Ng has served as an advisory board member for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, and AbbVie; has received honoraria as a speaker for Ferring, Tillotts, Menarini, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda; is a scientific cofounder and shareholder of GenieBiome; receives patent royalties through her affiliated institutions; and is named as a co-inventor of patent applications that cover the therapeutic and diagnostic use of microbiome. Dr. Chakrabarti has no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE MICROBIOLOGY
Should Cancer Trial Eligibility Become More Inclusive?
The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.
“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”
Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.
In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.
In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.
Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing.
The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers.
Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.
A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.
The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).
“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.
The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.
So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.
Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.
Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”
However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.
“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”
Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.
“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”
Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.
In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.
In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.
Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing.
The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers.
Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.
A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.
The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).
“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.
The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.
So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.
Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.
Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”
However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.
“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”
Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.
“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”
Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.
In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.
In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.
Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing.
The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers.
Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.
A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.
The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).
“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.
The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.
So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.
Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.
Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”
However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.
“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”
Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
COMBAT-MS: Therapy Choice for Relapsing-Remitting MS Has ‘Small’ Impact on Disability Progression, Patient-Reported Outcomes
, according to recent research published in Annals of Neurology.
Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and colleagues analyzed results from a cohort study in Sweden of 2449 patients with relapsing-remitting MS who started an initial disease-modifying therapy (DMT), and 2463 patients who switched from their first therapy between 2011 and 2018, with 1148 patients overlapping in both groups. DMTs evaluated in the group that started an initial treatment included rituximab (591 patients), natalizumab (334 patients), dimethyl fumarate (416 patients), interferon (992 patients), and glatiramer acetate (116 patients), while DMTs included in the group switching therapies were rituximab (748 patients), natalizumab (541 patients), dimethyl fumarate (570 patients), fingolimod (443 patients), and teriflunomide (161 patients).
The researchers compared patients receiving low-dose rituximab with other MS therapies, with confirmed disability worsening (CDW) over 12 months and change in disease-related impact on daily life as measured by MS Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) subscales as primary outcomes at 3 years after therapy initiation or switching. They also assessed the rate of relapse, discontinuation of therapy, and serious adverse events as secondary outcomes.
At 3 years, among patients who received rituximab, 9.1% of patients who initiated therapy and 5.1% who switched therapy experienced CDW, and there were no significant differences in disease worsening between patients who received rituximab and those who received other MS therapies. “Most instances of CDW on rituximab were in subjects with no relapse within 3 years of treatment start,” the researchers said.
Patient MSIS-29 physical subscores at 3 years improved by 1.3 points in the initial DMT group and by 0.4 points in the DMT-switching group, while MSIS-29 psychological scores improved by 8.4 points in the initial DMT and by 3.6 points in the DMT-switching group. “Adjusted for baseline characteristics, MSIS-29 physical subscale scores decreased more with natalizumab, both as a first DMT and after a DMT switch, compared with rituximab, although absolute differences were small,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.
With regard to secondary outcomes, there was a reduction in mean overall Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group at 3 years (–0.2 points), with 28.7% of patients experiencing improvement and 19.0% experiencing worsening, while there was no overall change in mean EDSS score in the rituximab-switching group. At 5 years, mean EDSS scores decreased compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group (–0.1 point), with 27.1% patients experiencing improvement and 20.8% experiencing worsening, and there was an increase in overall EDSS score (0.1 point) at 5 years for the rituximab-switching group, with improvement in 17.9% of patients and worsening in 26.4% of patients. However, there were no significant differences between rituximab and other DMTs.
Patients in both initial and switching rituximab groups had a lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) compared with other DMTs, with the exception of natalizumab in the initial DMT group (3 vs 2 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). The highest ARR in the initial DMT group belonged to interferon (13 additional relapses per 100 patients per year) and teriflunomide (8 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). “Similar differences were evident also at 5 years, with significantly higher ARRs with all other DMTs compared with rituximab, except for natalizumab, in both the first DMT and DMT switch groups,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.
In the group of patients who received rituximab, 75.7% of patients had no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) at 3 years in the initial DMT group and 82.1% of patients in the DMT-switching group, which was “greater than for all comparators, except natalizumab as a first DMT,” the researchers said. “Proportions fulfilling NEDA-3 status at 5 years were higher with rituximab than with all comparators in both cohorts,” they noted.
Concerning safety, the researchers said there were minor differences in safety outcomes between rituximab and comparators, but patients in the DMT-switching group who received rituximab had a higher risk of severe infections compared with other groups.
Unanswered Questions About MS Therapies
In an interview, Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates, New York, who was not involved in the study, emphasized the importance of high-potency DMTs and adherence for treatment success.
“Lower-efficacy DMT might result in insufficient suppression of disease activity that might not be clinically apparent,” he said. “Routine examination is not sufficient to detect cognitive impairment or change in cognitive impact of disease. Adherence is critical to therapy success, and infusion therapies or treatment not self-administered have higher likelihood of higher adherence rates.”
Commenting on the study by Piehl et al, Dr. Gudesblatt said it “provides important real-world information” on how infusion therapies are tolerated, their effectiveness, and their adherence compared with oral or self-administered treatments. For rituximab, “just as importantly, this therapy provides effective disease control with less accumulated disability and disability related health care costs,” he said.
Dr. Gudesblatt said there are several unanswered issues in the study, including the uncertain nature of the incidence and development of rituximab-blocking antibodies, which could potentially differ by biosimilar. “[H]ow this impacts therapy efficacy is unclear,” he said. “The presence of blocking antibodies should be routinely monitored.”
Another issue is the between-patient variation in degree of B-cell depletion and speed of B-cell repletion, which might differ based on therapy duration. “The timing and frequency of dosing is an issue that also needs further critical analysis and improved guidelines,” he noted.
Dr. Gudesblatt said up to 25% of patients with MS might have unrecognized immune deficiency. “[I]mmune deficiency unrelated to DMT as well as the development of immune deficiency related to DMT are issues of concern, as the rate of infections in B-cell depleting agents are higher than other class of DMT,” he explained. Patients with MS who develop infections carry significant risk of morbidity and mortality, he added.
“Lastly, the issue of vaccination failure is extremely high in B-cell depleting agents, and with the recent viral pandemic and lingering concerns about recurrent similar scenarios, this is another issue of great concern with use of this highly adherent and effective DMT choice,” Dr. Gudesblatt said.
Several authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, research support, honoraria, advisory board positions, travel support, and other fees for Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Teva. Dr. Gudesblatt reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
, according to recent research published in Annals of Neurology.
Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and colleagues analyzed results from a cohort study in Sweden of 2449 patients with relapsing-remitting MS who started an initial disease-modifying therapy (DMT), and 2463 patients who switched from their first therapy between 2011 and 2018, with 1148 patients overlapping in both groups. DMTs evaluated in the group that started an initial treatment included rituximab (591 patients), natalizumab (334 patients), dimethyl fumarate (416 patients), interferon (992 patients), and glatiramer acetate (116 patients), while DMTs included in the group switching therapies were rituximab (748 patients), natalizumab (541 patients), dimethyl fumarate (570 patients), fingolimod (443 patients), and teriflunomide (161 patients).
The researchers compared patients receiving low-dose rituximab with other MS therapies, with confirmed disability worsening (CDW) over 12 months and change in disease-related impact on daily life as measured by MS Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) subscales as primary outcomes at 3 years after therapy initiation or switching. They also assessed the rate of relapse, discontinuation of therapy, and serious adverse events as secondary outcomes.
At 3 years, among patients who received rituximab, 9.1% of patients who initiated therapy and 5.1% who switched therapy experienced CDW, and there were no significant differences in disease worsening between patients who received rituximab and those who received other MS therapies. “Most instances of CDW on rituximab were in subjects with no relapse within 3 years of treatment start,” the researchers said.
Patient MSIS-29 physical subscores at 3 years improved by 1.3 points in the initial DMT group and by 0.4 points in the DMT-switching group, while MSIS-29 psychological scores improved by 8.4 points in the initial DMT and by 3.6 points in the DMT-switching group. “Adjusted for baseline characteristics, MSIS-29 physical subscale scores decreased more with natalizumab, both as a first DMT and after a DMT switch, compared with rituximab, although absolute differences were small,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.
With regard to secondary outcomes, there was a reduction in mean overall Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group at 3 years (–0.2 points), with 28.7% of patients experiencing improvement and 19.0% experiencing worsening, while there was no overall change in mean EDSS score in the rituximab-switching group. At 5 years, mean EDSS scores decreased compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group (–0.1 point), with 27.1% patients experiencing improvement and 20.8% experiencing worsening, and there was an increase in overall EDSS score (0.1 point) at 5 years for the rituximab-switching group, with improvement in 17.9% of patients and worsening in 26.4% of patients. However, there were no significant differences between rituximab and other DMTs.
Patients in both initial and switching rituximab groups had a lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) compared with other DMTs, with the exception of natalizumab in the initial DMT group (3 vs 2 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). The highest ARR in the initial DMT group belonged to interferon (13 additional relapses per 100 patients per year) and teriflunomide (8 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). “Similar differences were evident also at 5 years, with significantly higher ARRs with all other DMTs compared with rituximab, except for natalizumab, in both the first DMT and DMT switch groups,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.
In the group of patients who received rituximab, 75.7% of patients had no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) at 3 years in the initial DMT group and 82.1% of patients in the DMT-switching group, which was “greater than for all comparators, except natalizumab as a first DMT,” the researchers said. “Proportions fulfilling NEDA-3 status at 5 years were higher with rituximab than with all comparators in both cohorts,” they noted.
Concerning safety, the researchers said there were minor differences in safety outcomes between rituximab and comparators, but patients in the DMT-switching group who received rituximab had a higher risk of severe infections compared with other groups.
Unanswered Questions About MS Therapies
In an interview, Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates, New York, who was not involved in the study, emphasized the importance of high-potency DMTs and adherence for treatment success.
“Lower-efficacy DMT might result in insufficient suppression of disease activity that might not be clinically apparent,” he said. “Routine examination is not sufficient to detect cognitive impairment or change in cognitive impact of disease. Adherence is critical to therapy success, and infusion therapies or treatment not self-administered have higher likelihood of higher adherence rates.”
Commenting on the study by Piehl et al, Dr. Gudesblatt said it “provides important real-world information” on how infusion therapies are tolerated, their effectiveness, and their adherence compared with oral or self-administered treatments. For rituximab, “just as importantly, this therapy provides effective disease control with less accumulated disability and disability related health care costs,” he said.
Dr. Gudesblatt said there are several unanswered issues in the study, including the uncertain nature of the incidence and development of rituximab-blocking antibodies, which could potentially differ by biosimilar. “[H]ow this impacts therapy efficacy is unclear,” he said. “The presence of blocking antibodies should be routinely monitored.”
Another issue is the between-patient variation in degree of B-cell depletion and speed of B-cell repletion, which might differ based on therapy duration. “The timing and frequency of dosing is an issue that also needs further critical analysis and improved guidelines,” he noted.
Dr. Gudesblatt said up to 25% of patients with MS might have unrecognized immune deficiency. “[I]mmune deficiency unrelated to DMT as well as the development of immune deficiency related to DMT are issues of concern, as the rate of infections in B-cell depleting agents are higher than other class of DMT,” he explained. Patients with MS who develop infections carry significant risk of morbidity and mortality, he added.
“Lastly, the issue of vaccination failure is extremely high in B-cell depleting agents, and with the recent viral pandemic and lingering concerns about recurrent similar scenarios, this is another issue of great concern with use of this highly adherent and effective DMT choice,” Dr. Gudesblatt said.
Several authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, research support, honoraria, advisory board positions, travel support, and other fees for Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Teva. Dr. Gudesblatt reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
, according to recent research published in Annals of Neurology.
Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and colleagues analyzed results from a cohort study in Sweden of 2449 patients with relapsing-remitting MS who started an initial disease-modifying therapy (DMT), and 2463 patients who switched from their first therapy between 2011 and 2018, with 1148 patients overlapping in both groups. DMTs evaluated in the group that started an initial treatment included rituximab (591 patients), natalizumab (334 patients), dimethyl fumarate (416 patients), interferon (992 patients), and glatiramer acetate (116 patients), while DMTs included in the group switching therapies were rituximab (748 patients), natalizumab (541 patients), dimethyl fumarate (570 patients), fingolimod (443 patients), and teriflunomide (161 patients).
The researchers compared patients receiving low-dose rituximab with other MS therapies, with confirmed disability worsening (CDW) over 12 months and change in disease-related impact on daily life as measured by MS Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) subscales as primary outcomes at 3 years after therapy initiation or switching. They also assessed the rate of relapse, discontinuation of therapy, and serious adverse events as secondary outcomes.
At 3 years, among patients who received rituximab, 9.1% of patients who initiated therapy and 5.1% who switched therapy experienced CDW, and there were no significant differences in disease worsening between patients who received rituximab and those who received other MS therapies. “Most instances of CDW on rituximab were in subjects with no relapse within 3 years of treatment start,” the researchers said.
Patient MSIS-29 physical subscores at 3 years improved by 1.3 points in the initial DMT group and by 0.4 points in the DMT-switching group, while MSIS-29 psychological scores improved by 8.4 points in the initial DMT and by 3.6 points in the DMT-switching group. “Adjusted for baseline characteristics, MSIS-29 physical subscale scores decreased more with natalizumab, both as a first DMT and after a DMT switch, compared with rituximab, although absolute differences were small,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.
With regard to secondary outcomes, there was a reduction in mean overall Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group at 3 years (–0.2 points), with 28.7% of patients experiencing improvement and 19.0% experiencing worsening, while there was no overall change in mean EDSS score in the rituximab-switching group. At 5 years, mean EDSS scores decreased compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group (–0.1 point), with 27.1% patients experiencing improvement and 20.8% experiencing worsening, and there was an increase in overall EDSS score (0.1 point) at 5 years for the rituximab-switching group, with improvement in 17.9% of patients and worsening in 26.4% of patients. However, there were no significant differences between rituximab and other DMTs.
Patients in both initial and switching rituximab groups had a lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) compared with other DMTs, with the exception of natalizumab in the initial DMT group (3 vs 2 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). The highest ARR in the initial DMT group belonged to interferon (13 additional relapses per 100 patients per year) and teriflunomide (8 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). “Similar differences were evident also at 5 years, with significantly higher ARRs with all other DMTs compared with rituximab, except for natalizumab, in both the first DMT and DMT switch groups,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.
In the group of patients who received rituximab, 75.7% of patients had no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) at 3 years in the initial DMT group and 82.1% of patients in the DMT-switching group, which was “greater than for all comparators, except natalizumab as a first DMT,” the researchers said. “Proportions fulfilling NEDA-3 status at 5 years were higher with rituximab than with all comparators in both cohorts,” they noted.
Concerning safety, the researchers said there were minor differences in safety outcomes between rituximab and comparators, but patients in the DMT-switching group who received rituximab had a higher risk of severe infections compared with other groups.
Unanswered Questions About MS Therapies
In an interview, Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates, New York, who was not involved in the study, emphasized the importance of high-potency DMTs and adherence for treatment success.
“Lower-efficacy DMT might result in insufficient suppression of disease activity that might not be clinically apparent,” he said. “Routine examination is not sufficient to detect cognitive impairment or change in cognitive impact of disease. Adherence is critical to therapy success, and infusion therapies or treatment not self-administered have higher likelihood of higher adherence rates.”
Commenting on the study by Piehl et al, Dr. Gudesblatt said it “provides important real-world information” on how infusion therapies are tolerated, their effectiveness, and their adherence compared with oral or self-administered treatments. For rituximab, “just as importantly, this therapy provides effective disease control with less accumulated disability and disability related health care costs,” he said.
Dr. Gudesblatt said there are several unanswered issues in the study, including the uncertain nature of the incidence and development of rituximab-blocking antibodies, which could potentially differ by biosimilar. “[H]ow this impacts therapy efficacy is unclear,” he said. “The presence of blocking antibodies should be routinely monitored.”
Another issue is the between-patient variation in degree of B-cell depletion and speed of B-cell repletion, which might differ based on therapy duration. “The timing and frequency of dosing is an issue that also needs further critical analysis and improved guidelines,” he noted.
Dr. Gudesblatt said up to 25% of patients with MS might have unrecognized immune deficiency. “[I]mmune deficiency unrelated to DMT as well as the development of immune deficiency related to DMT are issues of concern, as the rate of infections in B-cell depleting agents are higher than other class of DMT,” he explained. Patients with MS who develop infections carry significant risk of morbidity and mortality, he added.
“Lastly, the issue of vaccination failure is extremely high in B-cell depleting agents, and with the recent viral pandemic and lingering concerns about recurrent similar scenarios, this is another issue of great concern with use of this highly adherent and effective DMT choice,” Dr. Gudesblatt said.
Several authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, research support, honoraria, advisory board positions, travel support, and other fees for Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Teva. Dr. Gudesblatt reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
Neck Pain in Migraine Is Common, Linked to More Disability
, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.
Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.
Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”
As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”
Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability
The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.
For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.
Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).
Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.
Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).
Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P < 0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).
Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
Clinical Messages
The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.
He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.
As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.
If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.
In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”
The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”
Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.
AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.
Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.
, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.
Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.
Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”
As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”
Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability
The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.
For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.
Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).
Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.
Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).
Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P < 0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).
Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
Clinical Messages
The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.
He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.
As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.
If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.
In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”
The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”
Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.
AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.
Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.
, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.
Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.
Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”
As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”
Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability
The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.
For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.
Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).
Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.
Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).
Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P < 0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).
Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
Clinical Messages
The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.
He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.
As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.
If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.
In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”
The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”
Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.
AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.
Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.
FROM HEADACHE
Stroke Recurrence Risk Doubles in Patients With AF Who Stop Anticoagulation Therapy
, a new Danish nationwide cohort study finds.
Among 8,119 patients aged 50 years and older (54.1% male, mean age 78.4), 4.3% had a recurrent stroke within 1 year following discharge for the initial stroke, reported David Gaist, PhD, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and colleagues in JAMA Neurology.
An adjusted analysis found that those who stopped therapy were more than twice as likely to experience another stroke over a mean 2.9 years (13.4% vs 6.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-2.89).
The findings highlight the preventive power of OAC therapy, Dr. Gaist said in an interview, and point to the importance of counseling patients about the benefits of the drugs. “Clinicians can provide balanced information on the pros and cons of discontinuing oral anticoagulants as well as lay out plans on when to restart the medication,” he said.
The researchers launched the study “to provide data on how often recurrent ischemic strokes occur in a large, unselected cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation who had a stroke and started or restarted oral anticoagulants, a situation mirroring what we see in our everyday lives as clinicians,” Dr. Gaist said. “We also wanted to see if patients with breakthrough strokes had particular characteristics compared with patients who did not have a recurrent stroke. Finally, we wanted to quantify a very simple cause of breakthrough stroke by answering the following question: How many of these patients had stopped taking their oral anticoagulant?”
A Large, Unselected Patient Cohort
Dr. Gaist and colleagues tracked 8,119 patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation who started or restarted OAC therapy within 30 days following their discharge between 2014 and 2021. Patients either had atrial fibrillation before their stroke or developed it afterward.
Eighty-one percent of patients had hypertension, 19.7% had diabetes, and 27.3% had ischemic heart disease; 35.3% had never smoked and smoking information was missing for 15.9%. Race/ethnicity information was not provided.
Patients were followed for an average of 2.9 years until 2022, and all were alive at least 30 days after discharge. During that time, 663 patients had a recurrent ischemic stroke (4.3%), of whom 80.4% were on OAC therapy. The percentage who had stroke at 2 years rose to 6.5%.
While the researchers thought the number of strokes was high, Dr. Gaist said, this isn’t a sign that the drugs aren’t working. “Oral anticoagulant use in secondary prevention in atrial fibrillation is guideline-supported as it has been proven to reduce the risk of stroke by roughly two thirds.”
Of study participants at baseline, 37.9% took oral anticoagulants, 23.5% took direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and 15.1% took vitamin K antagonists. In a nested case-control analysis of 663 cases (58.7% men, mean age 80.1) matched to 2,652 controls, at admission for ischemic stroke, 80.4% were on OAC therapy, and 8%-11% of patients stopped OAC therapy after their strokes, the researchers reported.
Patients who stopped OAC therapy had more severe strokes than those who didn’t at 7 days (median recurrent ischemic stroke Scandinavian Stroke Scale [SSS] score = 40.0 vs 46.0, respectively; aOR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.31-3.36). Those who stopped OAC therapy also had higher mortality rates at 7 days (11.2% vs 3.9%, respectively) and 30 days (28.1% vs 10.9%, respectively).
It’s not clear why some patients discontinued OAC therapy. “We looked for evidence of serious bleeding or surgical procedures around the time of anticoagulant discontinuation but found this only to be the case in roughly 10% of these patients,” Dr. Gaist said.
He added that the study probably “underestimates the issue of anticoagulant discontinuation, particularly for DOACs, where a shorter half-life compared with warfarin means that even a short drug-break of a few days puts the patient at increased risk of stroke.”
The authors noted study limitations, including the lack of data on actual medication usage, alcohol usage, stroke etiology, lesion location, and socioeconomic status. And, they wrote, the study population is mostly of European origin.
No Surprises
Steven R. Messe, MD, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who didn’t take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, said in an interview that the study is a “well-done analysis.”
The findings are not surprising, he said. “The overall risk of stroke recurrence was 4.3% at 1 year while the mortality rate was higher at 15.4%. Given that the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 and the average age was 79, the stroke recurrence rate and mortality rate are in line with prior studies.”
In regard to the power of OAC therapy to prevent recurrent strokes, Dr. Messe noted that patients may not be adhering to prescribed regimens. Also, “while DOACs are clearly safer that vitamin K–dependent anticoagulants, the medications are generally not dose adjusted. It is possible that adjusting the dose based on measured anti-Xa levels to insure therapeutic anticoagulant effects may reduce the stroke risk further.”
He added that “most of these patients with prior stroke and atrial fibrillation are vasculopathic and at risk of additional strokes due to other mechanisms such as small vessel or large vessel disease.”
In the big picture, the study “confirms again that anticoagulation should be prescribed to all patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke, unless there is a strong bleeding risk contraindication,” Dr. Messe said. These patients are clearly at high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality, and all risk factors should be aggressively managed.”
Researchers are exploring other options, he said. “For example, there are studies of factor XI inhibitors that could be added to a DOAC for additional reductions in ischemic stroke. In addition, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the randomized trial LAOS III demonstrated that surgical left atrial occlusion in addition to anticoagulation may provide additional stroke prevention.”
Dr. Gaist disclosed personal fees from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb, and grants from Bayer. Several other authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Messe has no disclosures.
, a new Danish nationwide cohort study finds.
Among 8,119 patients aged 50 years and older (54.1% male, mean age 78.4), 4.3% had a recurrent stroke within 1 year following discharge for the initial stroke, reported David Gaist, PhD, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and colleagues in JAMA Neurology.
An adjusted analysis found that those who stopped therapy were more than twice as likely to experience another stroke over a mean 2.9 years (13.4% vs 6.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-2.89).
The findings highlight the preventive power of OAC therapy, Dr. Gaist said in an interview, and point to the importance of counseling patients about the benefits of the drugs. “Clinicians can provide balanced information on the pros and cons of discontinuing oral anticoagulants as well as lay out plans on when to restart the medication,” he said.
The researchers launched the study “to provide data on how often recurrent ischemic strokes occur in a large, unselected cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation who had a stroke and started or restarted oral anticoagulants, a situation mirroring what we see in our everyday lives as clinicians,” Dr. Gaist said. “We also wanted to see if patients with breakthrough strokes had particular characteristics compared with patients who did not have a recurrent stroke. Finally, we wanted to quantify a very simple cause of breakthrough stroke by answering the following question: How many of these patients had stopped taking their oral anticoagulant?”
A Large, Unselected Patient Cohort
Dr. Gaist and colleagues tracked 8,119 patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation who started or restarted OAC therapy within 30 days following their discharge between 2014 and 2021. Patients either had atrial fibrillation before their stroke or developed it afterward.
Eighty-one percent of patients had hypertension, 19.7% had diabetes, and 27.3% had ischemic heart disease; 35.3% had never smoked and smoking information was missing for 15.9%. Race/ethnicity information was not provided.
Patients were followed for an average of 2.9 years until 2022, and all were alive at least 30 days after discharge. During that time, 663 patients had a recurrent ischemic stroke (4.3%), of whom 80.4% were on OAC therapy. The percentage who had stroke at 2 years rose to 6.5%.
While the researchers thought the number of strokes was high, Dr. Gaist said, this isn’t a sign that the drugs aren’t working. “Oral anticoagulant use in secondary prevention in atrial fibrillation is guideline-supported as it has been proven to reduce the risk of stroke by roughly two thirds.”
Of study participants at baseline, 37.9% took oral anticoagulants, 23.5% took direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and 15.1% took vitamin K antagonists. In a nested case-control analysis of 663 cases (58.7% men, mean age 80.1) matched to 2,652 controls, at admission for ischemic stroke, 80.4% were on OAC therapy, and 8%-11% of patients stopped OAC therapy after their strokes, the researchers reported.
Patients who stopped OAC therapy had more severe strokes than those who didn’t at 7 days (median recurrent ischemic stroke Scandinavian Stroke Scale [SSS] score = 40.0 vs 46.0, respectively; aOR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.31-3.36). Those who stopped OAC therapy also had higher mortality rates at 7 days (11.2% vs 3.9%, respectively) and 30 days (28.1% vs 10.9%, respectively).
It’s not clear why some patients discontinued OAC therapy. “We looked for evidence of serious bleeding or surgical procedures around the time of anticoagulant discontinuation but found this only to be the case in roughly 10% of these patients,” Dr. Gaist said.
He added that the study probably “underestimates the issue of anticoagulant discontinuation, particularly for DOACs, where a shorter half-life compared with warfarin means that even a short drug-break of a few days puts the patient at increased risk of stroke.”
The authors noted study limitations, including the lack of data on actual medication usage, alcohol usage, stroke etiology, lesion location, and socioeconomic status. And, they wrote, the study population is mostly of European origin.
No Surprises
Steven R. Messe, MD, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who didn’t take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, said in an interview that the study is a “well-done analysis.”
The findings are not surprising, he said. “The overall risk of stroke recurrence was 4.3% at 1 year while the mortality rate was higher at 15.4%. Given that the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 and the average age was 79, the stroke recurrence rate and mortality rate are in line with prior studies.”
In regard to the power of OAC therapy to prevent recurrent strokes, Dr. Messe noted that patients may not be adhering to prescribed regimens. Also, “while DOACs are clearly safer that vitamin K–dependent anticoagulants, the medications are generally not dose adjusted. It is possible that adjusting the dose based on measured anti-Xa levels to insure therapeutic anticoagulant effects may reduce the stroke risk further.”
He added that “most of these patients with prior stroke and atrial fibrillation are vasculopathic and at risk of additional strokes due to other mechanisms such as small vessel or large vessel disease.”
In the big picture, the study “confirms again that anticoagulation should be prescribed to all patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke, unless there is a strong bleeding risk contraindication,” Dr. Messe said. These patients are clearly at high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality, and all risk factors should be aggressively managed.”
Researchers are exploring other options, he said. “For example, there are studies of factor XI inhibitors that could be added to a DOAC for additional reductions in ischemic stroke. In addition, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the randomized trial LAOS III demonstrated that surgical left atrial occlusion in addition to anticoagulation may provide additional stroke prevention.”
Dr. Gaist disclosed personal fees from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb, and grants from Bayer. Several other authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Messe has no disclosures.
, a new Danish nationwide cohort study finds.
Among 8,119 patients aged 50 years and older (54.1% male, mean age 78.4), 4.3% had a recurrent stroke within 1 year following discharge for the initial stroke, reported David Gaist, PhD, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and colleagues in JAMA Neurology.
An adjusted analysis found that those who stopped therapy were more than twice as likely to experience another stroke over a mean 2.9 years (13.4% vs 6.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-2.89).
The findings highlight the preventive power of OAC therapy, Dr. Gaist said in an interview, and point to the importance of counseling patients about the benefits of the drugs. “Clinicians can provide balanced information on the pros and cons of discontinuing oral anticoagulants as well as lay out plans on when to restart the medication,” he said.
The researchers launched the study “to provide data on how often recurrent ischemic strokes occur in a large, unselected cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation who had a stroke and started or restarted oral anticoagulants, a situation mirroring what we see in our everyday lives as clinicians,” Dr. Gaist said. “We also wanted to see if patients with breakthrough strokes had particular characteristics compared with patients who did not have a recurrent stroke. Finally, we wanted to quantify a very simple cause of breakthrough stroke by answering the following question: How many of these patients had stopped taking their oral anticoagulant?”
A Large, Unselected Patient Cohort
Dr. Gaist and colleagues tracked 8,119 patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation who started or restarted OAC therapy within 30 days following their discharge between 2014 and 2021. Patients either had atrial fibrillation before their stroke or developed it afterward.
Eighty-one percent of patients had hypertension, 19.7% had diabetes, and 27.3% had ischemic heart disease; 35.3% had never smoked and smoking information was missing for 15.9%. Race/ethnicity information was not provided.
Patients were followed for an average of 2.9 years until 2022, and all were alive at least 30 days after discharge. During that time, 663 patients had a recurrent ischemic stroke (4.3%), of whom 80.4% were on OAC therapy. The percentage who had stroke at 2 years rose to 6.5%.
While the researchers thought the number of strokes was high, Dr. Gaist said, this isn’t a sign that the drugs aren’t working. “Oral anticoagulant use in secondary prevention in atrial fibrillation is guideline-supported as it has been proven to reduce the risk of stroke by roughly two thirds.”
Of study participants at baseline, 37.9% took oral anticoagulants, 23.5% took direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and 15.1% took vitamin K antagonists. In a nested case-control analysis of 663 cases (58.7% men, mean age 80.1) matched to 2,652 controls, at admission for ischemic stroke, 80.4% were on OAC therapy, and 8%-11% of patients stopped OAC therapy after their strokes, the researchers reported.
Patients who stopped OAC therapy had more severe strokes than those who didn’t at 7 days (median recurrent ischemic stroke Scandinavian Stroke Scale [SSS] score = 40.0 vs 46.0, respectively; aOR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.31-3.36). Those who stopped OAC therapy also had higher mortality rates at 7 days (11.2% vs 3.9%, respectively) and 30 days (28.1% vs 10.9%, respectively).
It’s not clear why some patients discontinued OAC therapy. “We looked for evidence of serious bleeding or surgical procedures around the time of anticoagulant discontinuation but found this only to be the case in roughly 10% of these patients,” Dr. Gaist said.
He added that the study probably “underestimates the issue of anticoagulant discontinuation, particularly for DOACs, where a shorter half-life compared with warfarin means that even a short drug-break of a few days puts the patient at increased risk of stroke.”
The authors noted study limitations, including the lack of data on actual medication usage, alcohol usage, stroke etiology, lesion location, and socioeconomic status. And, they wrote, the study population is mostly of European origin.
No Surprises
Steven R. Messe, MD, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who didn’t take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, said in an interview that the study is a “well-done analysis.”
The findings are not surprising, he said. “The overall risk of stroke recurrence was 4.3% at 1 year while the mortality rate was higher at 15.4%. Given that the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 and the average age was 79, the stroke recurrence rate and mortality rate are in line with prior studies.”
In regard to the power of OAC therapy to prevent recurrent strokes, Dr. Messe noted that patients may not be adhering to prescribed regimens. Also, “while DOACs are clearly safer that vitamin K–dependent anticoagulants, the medications are generally not dose adjusted. It is possible that adjusting the dose based on measured anti-Xa levels to insure therapeutic anticoagulant effects may reduce the stroke risk further.”
He added that “most of these patients with prior stroke and atrial fibrillation are vasculopathic and at risk of additional strokes due to other mechanisms such as small vessel or large vessel disease.”
In the big picture, the study “confirms again that anticoagulation should be prescribed to all patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke, unless there is a strong bleeding risk contraindication,” Dr. Messe said. These patients are clearly at high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality, and all risk factors should be aggressively managed.”
Researchers are exploring other options, he said. “For example, there are studies of factor XI inhibitors that could be added to a DOAC for additional reductions in ischemic stroke. In addition, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the randomized trial LAOS III demonstrated that surgical left atrial occlusion in addition to anticoagulation may provide additional stroke prevention.”
Dr. Gaist disclosed personal fees from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb, and grants from Bayer. Several other authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Messe has no disclosures.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Is Anxiety a Prodromal Feature of Parkinson’s Disease?
new research suggested.
Investigators drew on 10-year data from primary care registry to compare almost 110,000 patients who developed anxiety after the age of 50 years with close to 900,000 matched controls without anxiety.
After adjusting for a variety of sociodemographic, lifestyle, psychiatric, and neurological factors, they found that the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with controls.
“Anxiety is known to be a feature of the early stages of Parkinson’s disease, but prior to our study, the prospective risk of Parkinson’s in those over the age of 50 with new-onset anxiety was unknown,” colead author Juan Bazo Alvarez, a senior research fellow in the Division of Epidemiology and Health at University College London, London, England, said in a news release.
The study was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.
The presence of anxiety is increased in prodromal Parkinson’s disease, but the prospective risk for Parkinson’s disease in those aged 50 years or older with new-onset anxiety was largely unknown.
Investigators analyzed data from a large UK primary care dataset that includes all people aged between 50 and 99 years who were registered with a participating practice from Jan. 1, 2008, to Dec. 31, 2018.
They identified 109,435 people (35% men) with more than one anxiety record in the database but no previous record of anxiety for 1 year or more and 878,256 people (37% men) with no history of anxiety (control group).
Features of Parkinson’s disease such as sleep problems, depression, tremor, and impaired balance were then tracked from the point of the anxiety diagnosis until 1 year before the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis.
Among those with anxiety, 331 developed Parkinson’s disease during the follow-up period, with a median time to diagnosis of 4.9 years after the first recorded episode of anxiety.
The incidence of Parkinson’s disease was 1.2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 0.92-1.13) in those with anxiety versus 0.49 (95% CI, 0.47-0.52) in those without anxiety.
After adjustment for age, sex, social deprivation, lifestyle factors, severe mental illness, head trauma, and dementia, the risk for Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with the non-anxiety group (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.9-2.4).
Individuals without anxiety also developed Parkinson’s disease later than those with anxiety.
The researchers identified specific symptoms that were associated with later development of Parkinson’s disease in those with anxiety, including depression, sleep disturbance, fatigue, and cognitive impairment, among other symptoms.
“The results suggest that there is a strong association between anxiety and diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in patients aged over 50 years who present with a new diagnosis of anxiety,” the authors wrote. “This provides evidence for anxiety as a prodromal presentation of Parkinson’s disease.”
Future research “should explore anxiety in relation to other prodromal symptoms and how this symptom complex is associated with the incidence of Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers wrote. Doing so “may lead to earlier diagnosis and better management of Parkinson’s disease.”
This study was funded by the European Union. Specific authors received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Alzheimer’s Society Clinical Training Fellowship program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggested.
Investigators drew on 10-year data from primary care registry to compare almost 110,000 patients who developed anxiety after the age of 50 years with close to 900,000 matched controls without anxiety.
After adjusting for a variety of sociodemographic, lifestyle, psychiatric, and neurological factors, they found that the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with controls.
“Anxiety is known to be a feature of the early stages of Parkinson’s disease, but prior to our study, the prospective risk of Parkinson’s in those over the age of 50 with new-onset anxiety was unknown,” colead author Juan Bazo Alvarez, a senior research fellow in the Division of Epidemiology and Health at University College London, London, England, said in a news release.
The study was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.
The presence of anxiety is increased in prodromal Parkinson’s disease, but the prospective risk for Parkinson’s disease in those aged 50 years or older with new-onset anxiety was largely unknown.
Investigators analyzed data from a large UK primary care dataset that includes all people aged between 50 and 99 years who were registered with a participating practice from Jan. 1, 2008, to Dec. 31, 2018.
They identified 109,435 people (35% men) with more than one anxiety record in the database but no previous record of anxiety for 1 year or more and 878,256 people (37% men) with no history of anxiety (control group).
Features of Parkinson’s disease such as sleep problems, depression, tremor, and impaired balance were then tracked from the point of the anxiety diagnosis until 1 year before the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis.
Among those with anxiety, 331 developed Parkinson’s disease during the follow-up period, with a median time to diagnosis of 4.9 years after the first recorded episode of anxiety.
The incidence of Parkinson’s disease was 1.2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 0.92-1.13) in those with anxiety versus 0.49 (95% CI, 0.47-0.52) in those without anxiety.
After adjustment for age, sex, social deprivation, lifestyle factors, severe mental illness, head trauma, and dementia, the risk for Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with the non-anxiety group (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.9-2.4).
Individuals without anxiety also developed Parkinson’s disease later than those with anxiety.
The researchers identified specific symptoms that were associated with later development of Parkinson’s disease in those with anxiety, including depression, sleep disturbance, fatigue, and cognitive impairment, among other symptoms.
“The results suggest that there is a strong association between anxiety and diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in patients aged over 50 years who present with a new diagnosis of anxiety,” the authors wrote. “This provides evidence for anxiety as a prodromal presentation of Parkinson’s disease.”
Future research “should explore anxiety in relation to other prodromal symptoms and how this symptom complex is associated with the incidence of Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers wrote. Doing so “may lead to earlier diagnosis and better management of Parkinson’s disease.”
This study was funded by the European Union. Specific authors received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Alzheimer’s Society Clinical Training Fellowship program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggested.
Investigators drew on 10-year data from primary care registry to compare almost 110,000 patients who developed anxiety after the age of 50 years with close to 900,000 matched controls without anxiety.
After adjusting for a variety of sociodemographic, lifestyle, psychiatric, and neurological factors, they found that the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with controls.
“Anxiety is known to be a feature of the early stages of Parkinson’s disease, but prior to our study, the prospective risk of Parkinson’s in those over the age of 50 with new-onset anxiety was unknown,” colead author Juan Bazo Alvarez, a senior research fellow in the Division of Epidemiology and Health at University College London, London, England, said in a news release.
The study was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.
The presence of anxiety is increased in prodromal Parkinson’s disease, but the prospective risk for Parkinson’s disease in those aged 50 years or older with new-onset anxiety was largely unknown.
Investigators analyzed data from a large UK primary care dataset that includes all people aged between 50 and 99 years who were registered with a participating practice from Jan. 1, 2008, to Dec. 31, 2018.
They identified 109,435 people (35% men) with more than one anxiety record in the database but no previous record of anxiety for 1 year or more and 878,256 people (37% men) with no history of anxiety (control group).
Features of Parkinson’s disease such as sleep problems, depression, tremor, and impaired balance were then tracked from the point of the anxiety diagnosis until 1 year before the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis.
Among those with anxiety, 331 developed Parkinson’s disease during the follow-up period, with a median time to diagnosis of 4.9 years after the first recorded episode of anxiety.
The incidence of Parkinson’s disease was 1.2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 0.92-1.13) in those with anxiety versus 0.49 (95% CI, 0.47-0.52) in those without anxiety.
After adjustment for age, sex, social deprivation, lifestyle factors, severe mental illness, head trauma, and dementia, the risk for Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with the non-anxiety group (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.9-2.4).
Individuals without anxiety also developed Parkinson’s disease later than those with anxiety.
The researchers identified specific symptoms that were associated with later development of Parkinson’s disease in those with anxiety, including depression, sleep disturbance, fatigue, and cognitive impairment, among other symptoms.
“The results suggest that there is a strong association between anxiety and diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in patients aged over 50 years who present with a new diagnosis of anxiety,” the authors wrote. “This provides evidence for anxiety as a prodromal presentation of Parkinson’s disease.”
Future research “should explore anxiety in relation to other prodromal symptoms and how this symptom complex is associated with the incidence of Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers wrote. Doing so “may lead to earlier diagnosis and better management of Parkinson’s disease.”
This study was funded by the European Union. Specific authors received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Alzheimer’s Society Clinical Training Fellowship program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE