User login
Novel gene therapy ‘reprograms’ cells to reverse neurologic deficits in children with rare disease
An experimental gene therapy produced marked clinical improvement in children with aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency, a rare genetic disorder that affects the synthesis of key neurotransmitters to cause severe developmental and motor disability.
In an article published July 12, 2021, in Nature Communications, a group of researchers based at the University of California, San Francisco, and Ohio State University, Columbus, described results from seven children ages 4-9 with AADC deficiency who underwent a novel form of surgery to deliver a viral vector expressing the human AADC gene to the midbrain.
Previous trials of this gene therapy in children with AADC deficiency targeted a different region of the brain, the putamen, with only slight clinical improvement. Here, investigators chose two midbrain regions – the substantia nigra pars compacta and the ventral tegmental area – in the hope of restoring healthy AADC enzyme activity in those neurons.
The study’s corresponding author, Krystof Bankiewicz, MD, PhD, professor and vice chair of research at Ohio State University, director of the Brain Health and Performance Center at Ohio State University, and professor emeritus and vice chair for research at UCSF, said in an interview that the brain regions chosen for this trial resulted from years of efforts to identify an ideal target in this disease.
“This particular vector undergoes axonal transport,” he said. “If you inject it into specific regions of the brain it will be transported into the terminals [of the nerve fibers]. And by looking at the imaging of these patients, we found that they still have the wiring in the brain that’s so critical. So we decided to aim at a much more difficult target, going directly to the source of the problem, which is the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area. This targets two critical pathways in the brain: one that drives motor responses and another that controls emotions.”
‘Surprising’ improvement seen
The children in the study – four girls and three boys – underwent surgery from 2016 to the end of 2018, and were divided into two dose cohorts, with one receiving three times the amount of vector as the other. Both groups, however, saw similar levels of improvement.
All but one child saw complete resolution of a hallmark symptom of the disease – oculogyric crises, or prolonged spasms of muscles controlling eye movement – within 3 months of surgery. Of the children followed at least 18 months, six attained head control within a year, two became able to eat and drink by mouth, and four gained the ability to sit up unaided in that time. At 18 months one child had learned to speak 50 words using an augmentative communication device.
One child died unexpectedly 7 months after the procedure, Dr. Bankiewicz said in an interview. This death appeared to be caused by cardiac complications of his disease, Dr. Bankiewicz said, which are common in AADC deficiency.
While the investigators are now looking at delivering the AADC gene therapy in younger children – who were excluded from this trial because of safety concerns surrounding the complex procedure – investigators were surprised by the level of improvement seen in older children.
“We initially didn’t believe – at least not all of us – that we could actually make an impact in the older patients, and that is not the case,” said Dr. Bankiewicz, who has since used the same gene therapy on a compassionate-use basis in Europe and seen durable clinical improvement in patients as old as 26. “The fact that we saw a response in that patient tells us something about how incredibly plastic the brain is.”
While the new study does not detail improvements in the children’s social and emotional well-being, Dr. Bankiewicz said these, too, were pronounced. “Kids fall into oculogyric crises in stress-inducing situation. They might be in a stroller being taken for a walk, and something in the environment would stress them. Sometimes they had to be kept in a dark room isolated from stress.” Following the gene therapy, “they’re laughing, they’re social, they can interact with their environment. It’s really touching to see them able to develop a bond now with their caregivers.”
Implication for other disorders
Dr. Bankiewicz and colleagues have previously used the same gene to boost AADC activity in patients with Parkinson’s disease. The group is also in trials to deliver a neuroprotective gene to the brains of people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, and a gene-silencing therapy in patients with Huntington’s disease. They will also continue recruiting pediatric patients for trials of the AADC gene therapy.
“We have been developing a method for safely treating younger children, so now we will go to 3 years old and maybe even below,” Dr. Bankiewicz said. “Earlier is probably better, but for technical and safety considerations we needed to be conservative first. It is hugely stressful to go into very sick patients with that type of therapy in that part of the brain. We had to get it right the first time, and it looks like we did.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the AADC Research Trust, the Pediatric Neurotransmitter Disease Association, and Ohio State University, with materials and technical support donated by ClearPoint Neuro. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with producers of diagnostic tests or biotechnology firms. Dr. Bankiewicz is a founder and shareholder of Brain Neurotherapy Bio, a company that develops gene therapies for Parkinson’s and other diseases.
An experimental gene therapy produced marked clinical improvement in children with aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency, a rare genetic disorder that affects the synthesis of key neurotransmitters to cause severe developmental and motor disability.
In an article published July 12, 2021, in Nature Communications, a group of researchers based at the University of California, San Francisco, and Ohio State University, Columbus, described results from seven children ages 4-9 with AADC deficiency who underwent a novel form of surgery to deliver a viral vector expressing the human AADC gene to the midbrain.
Previous trials of this gene therapy in children with AADC deficiency targeted a different region of the brain, the putamen, with only slight clinical improvement. Here, investigators chose two midbrain regions – the substantia nigra pars compacta and the ventral tegmental area – in the hope of restoring healthy AADC enzyme activity in those neurons.
The study’s corresponding author, Krystof Bankiewicz, MD, PhD, professor and vice chair of research at Ohio State University, director of the Brain Health and Performance Center at Ohio State University, and professor emeritus and vice chair for research at UCSF, said in an interview that the brain regions chosen for this trial resulted from years of efforts to identify an ideal target in this disease.
“This particular vector undergoes axonal transport,” he said. “If you inject it into specific regions of the brain it will be transported into the terminals [of the nerve fibers]. And by looking at the imaging of these patients, we found that they still have the wiring in the brain that’s so critical. So we decided to aim at a much more difficult target, going directly to the source of the problem, which is the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area. This targets two critical pathways in the brain: one that drives motor responses and another that controls emotions.”
‘Surprising’ improvement seen
The children in the study – four girls and three boys – underwent surgery from 2016 to the end of 2018, and were divided into two dose cohorts, with one receiving three times the amount of vector as the other. Both groups, however, saw similar levels of improvement.
All but one child saw complete resolution of a hallmark symptom of the disease – oculogyric crises, or prolonged spasms of muscles controlling eye movement – within 3 months of surgery. Of the children followed at least 18 months, six attained head control within a year, two became able to eat and drink by mouth, and four gained the ability to sit up unaided in that time. At 18 months one child had learned to speak 50 words using an augmentative communication device.
One child died unexpectedly 7 months after the procedure, Dr. Bankiewicz said in an interview. This death appeared to be caused by cardiac complications of his disease, Dr. Bankiewicz said, which are common in AADC deficiency.
While the investigators are now looking at delivering the AADC gene therapy in younger children – who were excluded from this trial because of safety concerns surrounding the complex procedure – investigators were surprised by the level of improvement seen in older children.
“We initially didn’t believe – at least not all of us – that we could actually make an impact in the older patients, and that is not the case,” said Dr. Bankiewicz, who has since used the same gene therapy on a compassionate-use basis in Europe and seen durable clinical improvement in patients as old as 26. “The fact that we saw a response in that patient tells us something about how incredibly plastic the brain is.”
While the new study does not detail improvements in the children’s social and emotional well-being, Dr. Bankiewicz said these, too, were pronounced. “Kids fall into oculogyric crises in stress-inducing situation. They might be in a stroller being taken for a walk, and something in the environment would stress them. Sometimes they had to be kept in a dark room isolated from stress.” Following the gene therapy, “they’re laughing, they’re social, they can interact with their environment. It’s really touching to see them able to develop a bond now with their caregivers.”
Implication for other disorders
Dr. Bankiewicz and colleagues have previously used the same gene to boost AADC activity in patients with Parkinson’s disease. The group is also in trials to deliver a neuroprotective gene to the brains of people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, and a gene-silencing therapy in patients with Huntington’s disease. They will also continue recruiting pediatric patients for trials of the AADC gene therapy.
“We have been developing a method for safely treating younger children, so now we will go to 3 years old and maybe even below,” Dr. Bankiewicz said. “Earlier is probably better, but for technical and safety considerations we needed to be conservative first. It is hugely stressful to go into very sick patients with that type of therapy in that part of the brain. We had to get it right the first time, and it looks like we did.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the AADC Research Trust, the Pediatric Neurotransmitter Disease Association, and Ohio State University, with materials and technical support donated by ClearPoint Neuro. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with producers of diagnostic tests or biotechnology firms. Dr. Bankiewicz is a founder and shareholder of Brain Neurotherapy Bio, a company that develops gene therapies for Parkinson’s and other diseases.
An experimental gene therapy produced marked clinical improvement in children with aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency, a rare genetic disorder that affects the synthesis of key neurotransmitters to cause severe developmental and motor disability.
In an article published July 12, 2021, in Nature Communications, a group of researchers based at the University of California, San Francisco, and Ohio State University, Columbus, described results from seven children ages 4-9 with AADC deficiency who underwent a novel form of surgery to deliver a viral vector expressing the human AADC gene to the midbrain.
Previous trials of this gene therapy in children with AADC deficiency targeted a different region of the brain, the putamen, with only slight clinical improvement. Here, investigators chose two midbrain regions – the substantia nigra pars compacta and the ventral tegmental area – in the hope of restoring healthy AADC enzyme activity in those neurons.
The study’s corresponding author, Krystof Bankiewicz, MD, PhD, professor and vice chair of research at Ohio State University, director of the Brain Health and Performance Center at Ohio State University, and professor emeritus and vice chair for research at UCSF, said in an interview that the brain regions chosen for this trial resulted from years of efforts to identify an ideal target in this disease.
“This particular vector undergoes axonal transport,” he said. “If you inject it into specific regions of the brain it will be transported into the terminals [of the nerve fibers]. And by looking at the imaging of these patients, we found that they still have the wiring in the brain that’s so critical. So we decided to aim at a much more difficult target, going directly to the source of the problem, which is the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area. This targets two critical pathways in the brain: one that drives motor responses and another that controls emotions.”
‘Surprising’ improvement seen
The children in the study – four girls and three boys – underwent surgery from 2016 to the end of 2018, and were divided into two dose cohorts, with one receiving three times the amount of vector as the other. Both groups, however, saw similar levels of improvement.
All but one child saw complete resolution of a hallmark symptom of the disease – oculogyric crises, or prolonged spasms of muscles controlling eye movement – within 3 months of surgery. Of the children followed at least 18 months, six attained head control within a year, two became able to eat and drink by mouth, and four gained the ability to sit up unaided in that time. At 18 months one child had learned to speak 50 words using an augmentative communication device.
One child died unexpectedly 7 months after the procedure, Dr. Bankiewicz said in an interview. This death appeared to be caused by cardiac complications of his disease, Dr. Bankiewicz said, which are common in AADC deficiency.
While the investigators are now looking at delivering the AADC gene therapy in younger children – who were excluded from this trial because of safety concerns surrounding the complex procedure – investigators were surprised by the level of improvement seen in older children.
“We initially didn’t believe – at least not all of us – that we could actually make an impact in the older patients, and that is not the case,” said Dr. Bankiewicz, who has since used the same gene therapy on a compassionate-use basis in Europe and seen durable clinical improvement in patients as old as 26. “The fact that we saw a response in that patient tells us something about how incredibly plastic the brain is.”
While the new study does not detail improvements in the children’s social and emotional well-being, Dr. Bankiewicz said these, too, were pronounced. “Kids fall into oculogyric crises in stress-inducing situation. They might be in a stroller being taken for a walk, and something in the environment would stress them. Sometimes they had to be kept in a dark room isolated from stress.” Following the gene therapy, “they’re laughing, they’re social, they can interact with their environment. It’s really touching to see them able to develop a bond now with their caregivers.”
Implication for other disorders
Dr. Bankiewicz and colleagues have previously used the same gene to boost AADC activity in patients with Parkinson’s disease. The group is also in trials to deliver a neuroprotective gene to the brains of people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, and a gene-silencing therapy in patients with Huntington’s disease. They will also continue recruiting pediatric patients for trials of the AADC gene therapy.
“We have been developing a method for safely treating younger children, so now we will go to 3 years old and maybe even below,” Dr. Bankiewicz said. “Earlier is probably better, but for technical and safety considerations we needed to be conservative first. It is hugely stressful to go into very sick patients with that type of therapy in that part of the brain. We had to get it right the first time, and it looks like we did.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the AADC Research Trust, the Pediatric Neurotransmitter Disease Association, and Ohio State University, with materials and technical support donated by ClearPoint Neuro. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with producers of diagnostic tests or biotechnology firms. Dr. Bankiewicz is a founder and shareholder of Brain Neurotherapy Bio, a company that develops gene therapies for Parkinson’s and other diseases.
FROM NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Updated consensus statement assesses new migraine treatments
“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.
To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
New migraine treatment
Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.
Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”
The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.
More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.
Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.
Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
Initiating treatment
When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.
The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.
From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.
The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
Not everyone agrees
Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:
1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment
2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”
Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”
Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”
They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”
Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”
Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”
Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
Suggested reading
Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.
Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.
Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.
“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.
To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
New migraine treatment
Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.
Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”
The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.
More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.
Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.
Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
Initiating treatment
When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.
The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.
From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.
The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
Not everyone agrees
Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:
1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment
2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”
Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”
Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”
They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”
Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”
Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”
Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
Suggested reading
Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.
Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.
Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.
“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.
To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
New migraine treatment
Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.
Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”
The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.
More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.
Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.
Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
Initiating treatment
When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.
The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.
From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.
The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
Not everyone agrees
Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:
1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment
2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”
Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”
Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”
They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”
Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”
Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”
Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
Suggested reading
Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.
Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.
Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.
FROM HEADACHE
Chronic stress and genetics can raise the risk of Alzheimer’s disease
The researchers also proposed a mechanism to account for how genetic factors may affect HPA axis reactivity and lead to inflammation, which is a core component of neurodegeneration.
“Chronic stress can impact the way immune cells in the brain function and increase inflammation. Genetic variants within that stress response can further affect the function of immune cells,” lead author Ayeisha Milligan Armstrong, a PhD candidate at Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute in Perth, Australia, said in an interview.
The findings were published online June 22 in Biological Reviews).
Research has found that long-term stress during early and mid-life is increasingly associated with cognitive decline and neurodegeneration. There is already evidence to suggest that chronic stress is a risk factor for the “sporadic” or late-onset subtype of Alzheimer’s disease.
A cascade of events
Stress activates the HPA, which in turn regulates bodily levels of cortisol, a glucocorticoid stress hormone. Increased levels of cortisol are frequently observed in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and “make a major contribution to the disease process,” the authors wrote. For example, the hippocampus – a part of the brain involved in processing and forming memories – has numerous glucocorticoid receptors and is “therefore particularly sensitive to the effects of glucocorticoids.” However, the molecular mechanisms involved remain poorly understood.
“There is an intimate interplay between exposure to chronic stress and pathways influencing the body’s reaction to such stress,” senior author David Groth, PhD, said in a statement. Dr. Groth is an associate professor at Curtin University in Perth, Australia.
There is variation between individuals with regard to how sensitive they are to stress and glucocorticoid responses. Environmental factors such as stress are thought to be at least partly responsible, as are genetic factors such as genetic polymorphisms and epigenetics. “Genetic variations within these pathways can influence the way the brain’s immune system behaves, leading to a dysfunctional response. In the brain, this leads to a chronic disruption of normal brain processes, increasing the risk of subsequent neurodegeneration and ultimately dementia,” Dr. Groth said.
The researchers suggested that these variations may prime the immune cells of the brain, the microglia, to cause inflammation in the brain. Normally, microglia are involved in monitoring the brain tissue for and responding to damage and infections to keep the brain healthy. However, in an inflammatory state, the microglia instead contribute to a “more neurotoxic environment through the production of proinflammatory cytokines, altered synaptic pruning, and the reduced production of protective neurotrophic factors,” the authors wrote. Microglia may also promote the accumulation of amyloid beta and tau protein, which damage the brain tissue and can cause neurodegeneration. There are different groups of microglia in the brain, each of which may respond differently to genetic and environmental stressors.
“Genome-wide association studies have found that of the genes identified as being associated with Alzheimer’s disease, 60.5% are expressed in microglia,” the authors noted.
To connect the roles of chronic stress and brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers proposed a “two-hit” hypothesis: Early or mid-life exposure to stress primes the microglia to enter an inflammatory state in response to a secondary stimulus later in life.
Pay attention to stress
For clinicians, this paper highlights the importance of managing stress in patients and their families.
“Clinicians need to be attuned to the effects of stress on patients and their caregivers, and how that [stress] can affect their morbidity and mortality,” Cynthia Munro, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. She added that attention must be paid to modifiable risk factors such as poor sleep and diet.
Although managing stress is important, that doesn’t mean that everyone who’s experienced chronic stress will develop Alzheimer’s disease. “Chronic stress can alter the HPA axis but it doesn’t necessarily do so in everyone. A cascade of events needs to occur,” said Dr. Munro. “People should always try to reduce the effects of stress to the extent that they can. Stress can lead to a whole host of negative health outcomes, not just Alzheimer’s disease.”
Next steps
Moving forward, the researchers plan to further investigate the molecular mechanisms responsible for the role of stress in Alzheimer’s disease and how genetic variants affect neurodegeneration, Ms. Armstrong said. Ultimately, understanding how stress and genetics contribute to Alzheimer’s disease may lead to the identification of possible therapeutic targets.
Ms. Armstrong and Dr. Munro declared no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently funded.
The researchers also proposed a mechanism to account for how genetic factors may affect HPA axis reactivity and lead to inflammation, which is a core component of neurodegeneration.
“Chronic stress can impact the way immune cells in the brain function and increase inflammation. Genetic variants within that stress response can further affect the function of immune cells,” lead author Ayeisha Milligan Armstrong, a PhD candidate at Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute in Perth, Australia, said in an interview.
The findings were published online June 22 in Biological Reviews).
Research has found that long-term stress during early and mid-life is increasingly associated with cognitive decline and neurodegeneration. There is already evidence to suggest that chronic stress is a risk factor for the “sporadic” or late-onset subtype of Alzheimer’s disease.
A cascade of events
Stress activates the HPA, which in turn regulates bodily levels of cortisol, a glucocorticoid stress hormone. Increased levels of cortisol are frequently observed in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and “make a major contribution to the disease process,” the authors wrote. For example, the hippocampus – a part of the brain involved in processing and forming memories – has numerous glucocorticoid receptors and is “therefore particularly sensitive to the effects of glucocorticoids.” However, the molecular mechanisms involved remain poorly understood.
“There is an intimate interplay between exposure to chronic stress and pathways influencing the body’s reaction to such stress,” senior author David Groth, PhD, said in a statement. Dr. Groth is an associate professor at Curtin University in Perth, Australia.
There is variation between individuals with regard to how sensitive they are to stress and glucocorticoid responses. Environmental factors such as stress are thought to be at least partly responsible, as are genetic factors such as genetic polymorphisms and epigenetics. “Genetic variations within these pathways can influence the way the brain’s immune system behaves, leading to a dysfunctional response. In the brain, this leads to a chronic disruption of normal brain processes, increasing the risk of subsequent neurodegeneration and ultimately dementia,” Dr. Groth said.
The researchers suggested that these variations may prime the immune cells of the brain, the microglia, to cause inflammation in the brain. Normally, microglia are involved in monitoring the brain tissue for and responding to damage and infections to keep the brain healthy. However, in an inflammatory state, the microglia instead contribute to a “more neurotoxic environment through the production of proinflammatory cytokines, altered synaptic pruning, and the reduced production of protective neurotrophic factors,” the authors wrote. Microglia may also promote the accumulation of amyloid beta and tau protein, which damage the brain tissue and can cause neurodegeneration. There are different groups of microglia in the brain, each of which may respond differently to genetic and environmental stressors.
“Genome-wide association studies have found that of the genes identified as being associated with Alzheimer’s disease, 60.5% are expressed in microglia,” the authors noted.
To connect the roles of chronic stress and brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers proposed a “two-hit” hypothesis: Early or mid-life exposure to stress primes the microglia to enter an inflammatory state in response to a secondary stimulus later in life.
Pay attention to stress
For clinicians, this paper highlights the importance of managing stress in patients and their families.
“Clinicians need to be attuned to the effects of stress on patients and their caregivers, and how that [stress] can affect their morbidity and mortality,” Cynthia Munro, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. She added that attention must be paid to modifiable risk factors such as poor sleep and diet.
Although managing stress is important, that doesn’t mean that everyone who’s experienced chronic stress will develop Alzheimer’s disease. “Chronic stress can alter the HPA axis but it doesn’t necessarily do so in everyone. A cascade of events needs to occur,” said Dr. Munro. “People should always try to reduce the effects of stress to the extent that they can. Stress can lead to a whole host of negative health outcomes, not just Alzheimer’s disease.”
Next steps
Moving forward, the researchers plan to further investigate the molecular mechanisms responsible for the role of stress in Alzheimer’s disease and how genetic variants affect neurodegeneration, Ms. Armstrong said. Ultimately, understanding how stress and genetics contribute to Alzheimer’s disease may lead to the identification of possible therapeutic targets.
Ms. Armstrong and Dr. Munro declared no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently funded.
The researchers also proposed a mechanism to account for how genetic factors may affect HPA axis reactivity and lead to inflammation, which is a core component of neurodegeneration.
“Chronic stress can impact the way immune cells in the brain function and increase inflammation. Genetic variants within that stress response can further affect the function of immune cells,” lead author Ayeisha Milligan Armstrong, a PhD candidate at Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute in Perth, Australia, said in an interview.
The findings were published online June 22 in Biological Reviews).
Research has found that long-term stress during early and mid-life is increasingly associated with cognitive decline and neurodegeneration. There is already evidence to suggest that chronic stress is a risk factor for the “sporadic” or late-onset subtype of Alzheimer’s disease.
A cascade of events
Stress activates the HPA, which in turn regulates bodily levels of cortisol, a glucocorticoid stress hormone. Increased levels of cortisol are frequently observed in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and “make a major contribution to the disease process,” the authors wrote. For example, the hippocampus – a part of the brain involved in processing and forming memories – has numerous glucocorticoid receptors and is “therefore particularly sensitive to the effects of glucocorticoids.” However, the molecular mechanisms involved remain poorly understood.
“There is an intimate interplay between exposure to chronic stress and pathways influencing the body’s reaction to such stress,” senior author David Groth, PhD, said in a statement. Dr. Groth is an associate professor at Curtin University in Perth, Australia.
There is variation between individuals with regard to how sensitive they are to stress and glucocorticoid responses. Environmental factors such as stress are thought to be at least partly responsible, as are genetic factors such as genetic polymorphisms and epigenetics. “Genetic variations within these pathways can influence the way the brain’s immune system behaves, leading to a dysfunctional response. In the brain, this leads to a chronic disruption of normal brain processes, increasing the risk of subsequent neurodegeneration and ultimately dementia,” Dr. Groth said.
The researchers suggested that these variations may prime the immune cells of the brain, the microglia, to cause inflammation in the brain. Normally, microglia are involved in monitoring the brain tissue for and responding to damage and infections to keep the brain healthy. However, in an inflammatory state, the microglia instead contribute to a “more neurotoxic environment through the production of proinflammatory cytokines, altered synaptic pruning, and the reduced production of protective neurotrophic factors,” the authors wrote. Microglia may also promote the accumulation of amyloid beta and tau protein, which damage the brain tissue and can cause neurodegeneration. There are different groups of microglia in the brain, each of which may respond differently to genetic and environmental stressors.
“Genome-wide association studies have found that of the genes identified as being associated with Alzheimer’s disease, 60.5% are expressed in microglia,” the authors noted.
To connect the roles of chronic stress and brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers proposed a “two-hit” hypothesis: Early or mid-life exposure to stress primes the microglia to enter an inflammatory state in response to a secondary stimulus later in life.
Pay attention to stress
For clinicians, this paper highlights the importance of managing stress in patients and their families.
“Clinicians need to be attuned to the effects of stress on patients and their caregivers, and how that [stress] can affect their morbidity and mortality,” Cynthia Munro, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. She added that attention must be paid to modifiable risk factors such as poor sleep and diet.
Although managing stress is important, that doesn’t mean that everyone who’s experienced chronic stress will develop Alzheimer’s disease. “Chronic stress can alter the HPA axis but it doesn’t necessarily do so in everyone. A cascade of events needs to occur,” said Dr. Munro. “People should always try to reduce the effects of stress to the extent that they can. Stress can lead to a whole host of negative health outcomes, not just Alzheimer’s disease.”
Next steps
Moving forward, the researchers plan to further investigate the molecular mechanisms responsible for the role of stress in Alzheimer’s disease and how genetic variants affect neurodegeneration, Ms. Armstrong said. Ultimately, understanding how stress and genetics contribute to Alzheimer’s disease may lead to the identification of possible therapeutic targets.
Ms. Armstrong and Dr. Munro declared no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently funded.
FROM BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
Is walking speed following stroke a good predictor of recovery?
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Clinical Rehabilitation
Magnesium is strongly tied to lower risk for intracranial aneurysm
The effects may be partially mediated by magnesium’s influence on systolic blood pressure, new research suggests.
“The modifiable risk factors for intracranial aneurysm are largely unknown. Our findings provided evidence of a causal association between increased serum magnesium levels and reduced risk of intracranial aneurysm,” said Susanna Larsson, PhD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
These results suggest that raising serum magnesium levels – through a magnesium-rich diet or magnesium supplementation – “may play a role in the primary prevention of intracranial aneurysm and associated hemorrhage,” Dr. Larsson added.
The study was published online June 22 in Neurology.
Lower risk for rupture
The researchers leveraged randomly allocated genetic variants related to serum magnesium concentrations in a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to assess whether higher genetically predicted serum magnesium correlates with reduced risk for intracranial aneurysm. They also performed a multivariable MR analysis to assess the role blood pressure might play in this association.
Source data came from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) involving 23,829 individuals that previously identified five single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with serum magnesium. Genetic association estimates for intracranial aneurysm were derived from a GWAS in 79,429 people (7,495 case patients and 71,934 control patients), and genetic association estimates for systolic blood pressure were derived from a GWAS of 757,601 individuals.
The researchers found that higher genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were associated with lower risk for intracranial aneurysm.
The odds ratios per 0.1 mmol/L increment in genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.91) for intracranial aneurysm (unruptured and ruptured combined), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30-1.06) for unruptured intracranial aneurysm, and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.92) for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Adjustment for genetically predicted systolic blood pressure partially attenuated the associations of genetically predicted serum magnesium with all three outcomes, suggesting that magnesium’s influence was at least partially mediated by systolic blood pressure.
“In addition to a blood pressure lowering effect, increased magnesium concentrations may reduce the risk of intracranial aneurysm rupture by improving endothelial function and reducing oxidative stress,” the investigators noted.
They caution that the data were derived from people of European ancestry, which limits the generalizability to other populations. “Caution should be taken when extrapolating findings from MR to infer the effect of a clinical intervention, and clinical trials are warranted to guide optimal practice,” they added.
Critical role in vascular health
In an accompanying editorial, Joanna Pera, MD, PhD, of Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland, and Christopher Anderson, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that the study “adds to our understanding of the importance of magnesium in vascular health particularly related to cerebral aneurysms.”
There is a need for “both mechanistic and potentially therapeutic investigation into the role that magnesium plays in subarachnoid hemorrhage,” they added.
Further, they wrote, the results “raise interesting new questions about the links between circulating magnesium, intracranial aneurysms, and blood pressure. Arterial hypertension is a well-recognized risk factor for intracranial aneurysm development and rupture. Magnesium supplementation may lower blood pressure values.
“Could this mineral prove useful in developing interventions that could prevent intracranial aneurysm development and/or rupture over and above a simple lowering of blood pressure, perhaps through pleiotropic effects on endothelial function or other mechanisms? With these results in hand, work is clearly needed to learn more about the biology of magnesium in the vascular system and in intracranial aneurysm biology in particular,” Dr. Pera and Dr. Anderson concluded.
This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the British Heart Foundation Research Center of Excellence at Imperial College London, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship at St. George’s, University of London. Dr. Larsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Dipender Gill, PhD, is employed part time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Pera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Anderson has received research support from the Bayer AG and has consulted for ApoPharma and Invitae.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The effects may be partially mediated by magnesium’s influence on systolic blood pressure, new research suggests.
“The modifiable risk factors for intracranial aneurysm are largely unknown. Our findings provided evidence of a causal association between increased serum magnesium levels and reduced risk of intracranial aneurysm,” said Susanna Larsson, PhD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
These results suggest that raising serum magnesium levels – through a magnesium-rich diet or magnesium supplementation – “may play a role in the primary prevention of intracranial aneurysm and associated hemorrhage,” Dr. Larsson added.
The study was published online June 22 in Neurology.
Lower risk for rupture
The researchers leveraged randomly allocated genetic variants related to serum magnesium concentrations in a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to assess whether higher genetically predicted serum magnesium correlates with reduced risk for intracranial aneurysm. They also performed a multivariable MR analysis to assess the role blood pressure might play in this association.
Source data came from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) involving 23,829 individuals that previously identified five single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with serum magnesium. Genetic association estimates for intracranial aneurysm were derived from a GWAS in 79,429 people (7,495 case patients and 71,934 control patients), and genetic association estimates for systolic blood pressure were derived from a GWAS of 757,601 individuals.
The researchers found that higher genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were associated with lower risk for intracranial aneurysm.
The odds ratios per 0.1 mmol/L increment in genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.91) for intracranial aneurysm (unruptured and ruptured combined), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30-1.06) for unruptured intracranial aneurysm, and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.92) for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Adjustment for genetically predicted systolic blood pressure partially attenuated the associations of genetically predicted serum magnesium with all three outcomes, suggesting that magnesium’s influence was at least partially mediated by systolic blood pressure.
“In addition to a blood pressure lowering effect, increased magnesium concentrations may reduce the risk of intracranial aneurysm rupture by improving endothelial function and reducing oxidative stress,” the investigators noted.
They caution that the data were derived from people of European ancestry, which limits the generalizability to other populations. “Caution should be taken when extrapolating findings from MR to infer the effect of a clinical intervention, and clinical trials are warranted to guide optimal practice,” they added.
Critical role in vascular health
In an accompanying editorial, Joanna Pera, MD, PhD, of Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland, and Christopher Anderson, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that the study “adds to our understanding of the importance of magnesium in vascular health particularly related to cerebral aneurysms.”
There is a need for “both mechanistic and potentially therapeutic investigation into the role that magnesium plays in subarachnoid hemorrhage,” they added.
Further, they wrote, the results “raise interesting new questions about the links between circulating magnesium, intracranial aneurysms, and blood pressure. Arterial hypertension is a well-recognized risk factor for intracranial aneurysm development and rupture. Magnesium supplementation may lower blood pressure values.
“Could this mineral prove useful in developing interventions that could prevent intracranial aneurysm development and/or rupture over and above a simple lowering of blood pressure, perhaps through pleiotropic effects on endothelial function or other mechanisms? With these results in hand, work is clearly needed to learn more about the biology of magnesium in the vascular system and in intracranial aneurysm biology in particular,” Dr. Pera and Dr. Anderson concluded.
This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the British Heart Foundation Research Center of Excellence at Imperial College London, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship at St. George’s, University of London. Dr. Larsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Dipender Gill, PhD, is employed part time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Pera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Anderson has received research support from the Bayer AG and has consulted for ApoPharma and Invitae.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The effects may be partially mediated by magnesium’s influence on systolic blood pressure, new research suggests.
“The modifiable risk factors for intracranial aneurysm are largely unknown. Our findings provided evidence of a causal association between increased serum magnesium levels and reduced risk of intracranial aneurysm,” said Susanna Larsson, PhD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
These results suggest that raising serum magnesium levels – through a magnesium-rich diet or magnesium supplementation – “may play a role in the primary prevention of intracranial aneurysm and associated hemorrhage,” Dr. Larsson added.
The study was published online June 22 in Neurology.
Lower risk for rupture
The researchers leveraged randomly allocated genetic variants related to serum magnesium concentrations in a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to assess whether higher genetically predicted serum magnesium correlates with reduced risk for intracranial aneurysm. They also performed a multivariable MR analysis to assess the role blood pressure might play in this association.
Source data came from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) involving 23,829 individuals that previously identified five single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with serum magnesium. Genetic association estimates for intracranial aneurysm were derived from a GWAS in 79,429 people (7,495 case patients and 71,934 control patients), and genetic association estimates for systolic blood pressure were derived from a GWAS of 757,601 individuals.
The researchers found that higher genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were associated with lower risk for intracranial aneurysm.
The odds ratios per 0.1 mmol/L increment in genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.91) for intracranial aneurysm (unruptured and ruptured combined), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30-1.06) for unruptured intracranial aneurysm, and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.92) for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Adjustment for genetically predicted systolic blood pressure partially attenuated the associations of genetically predicted serum magnesium with all three outcomes, suggesting that magnesium’s influence was at least partially mediated by systolic blood pressure.
“In addition to a blood pressure lowering effect, increased magnesium concentrations may reduce the risk of intracranial aneurysm rupture by improving endothelial function and reducing oxidative stress,” the investigators noted.
They caution that the data were derived from people of European ancestry, which limits the generalizability to other populations. “Caution should be taken when extrapolating findings from MR to infer the effect of a clinical intervention, and clinical trials are warranted to guide optimal practice,” they added.
Critical role in vascular health
In an accompanying editorial, Joanna Pera, MD, PhD, of Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland, and Christopher Anderson, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that the study “adds to our understanding of the importance of magnesium in vascular health particularly related to cerebral aneurysms.”
There is a need for “both mechanistic and potentially therapeutic investigation into the role that magnesium plays in subarachnoid hemorrhage,” they added.
Further, they wrote, the results “raise interesting new questions about the links between circulating magnesium, intracranial aneurysms, and blood pressure. Arterial hypertension is a well-recognized risk factor for intracranial aneurysm development and rupture. Magnesium supplementation may lower blood pressure values.
“Could this mineral prove useful in developing interventions that could prevent intracranial aneurysm development and/or rupture over and above a simple lowering of blood pressure, perhaps through pleiotropic effects on endothelial function or other mechanisms? With these results in hand, work is clearly needed to learn more about the biology of magnesium in the vascular system and in intracranial aneurysm biology in particular,” Dr. Pera and Dr. Anderson concluded.
This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the British Heart Foundation Research Center of Excellence at Imperial College London, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship at St. George’s, University of London. Dr. Larsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Dipender Gill, PhD, is employed part time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Pera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Anderson has received research support from the Bayer AG and has consulted for ApoPharma and Invitae.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Neurology
Two case reports identify Guillain-Barré variants after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare peripheral nerve disorder that can occur after certain types of viral and bacterial infections, has not to date been definitively linked to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or with vaccination against the virus, despite surveillance searching for such associations.
Spikes in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence have previously, but rarely, been associated with outbreaks of other viral diseases, including Zika, but not with vaccination, except for a 1976-1977 swine influenza vaccine campaign in the United States that was seen associated with a slight elevation in risk, and was halted when that risk became known. Since then, all sorts of vaccines in the European Union and United States have come with warnings about Guillain-Barré syndrome in their package inserts – a fact that some Guillain-Barré syndrome experts lament as perpetuating the notion that vaccines cause Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Epidemiologic studies in the United Kingdom and Singapore did not detect increases in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. And as mass vaccination against COVID-19 got underway early this year, experts cautioned against the temptation to attribute incident Guillain-Barré syndrome cases following vaccination to SARS-CoV-2 without careful statistical and epidemiological analysis. Until now reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome have been scant: clinical trials of a viral vector vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson saw one in the placebo arm and another in the intervention arm, while another case was reported following administration of a Pfizer mRNA SARS-Cov-2 vaccine.
Recent case reports
None of the patients had evidence of current SARS-CoV-2 infection.
From India, Boby V. Maramattom, MD, of Aster Medcity in Kochi, India, and colleagues reported on seven severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring between 10 and 14 days after a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. All but one of the patients were women, all had bilateral facial paresis, all progressed to areflexic quadriplegia, and six required respiratory support. Patients’ ages ranged from 43 to 70. Four developed other cranial neuropathies, including abducens palsy and trigeminal sensory nerve involvement, which are rare in reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome from India, Dr. Maramattom and colleagues noted.
The authors argued that their findings “should prompt all physicians to be vigilant in recognizing Guillain-Barré syndrome in patients who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine. While the risk per patient (5.8 per million) may be relatively low, our observations suggest that this clinically distinct [Guillain-Barré syndrome] variant is more severe than usual and may require mechanical ventilation.”
The U.K. cases, reported by Christopher Martin Allen, MD, and colleagues at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, describe bifacial weakness and normal facial sensation in four men between 11 and 22 days after their first doses of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. This type of facial palsy, the authors wrote, was unusual Guillain-Barré syndrome variant that one rapid review found in 3 of 42 European patients diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Dr. Allen and colleagues acknowledged that causality could not be assumed from the temporal relationship of immunization to onset of bifacial weakness in their report, but argued that their findings argued for “robust postvaccination surveillance” and that “the report of a similar syndrome in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests an immunologic response to the spike protein.” If the link is casual, they wrote, “it could be due to a cross-reactive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and components of the peripheral immune system.”
‘The jury is still out’
Asked for comment, neurologist Anthony Amato, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he did not see what the two new studies add to what is already known. “Guillain-Barré syndrome has already been reported temporally following COVID-19 along with accompanying editorials that such temporal occurrences do not imply causation and there is a need for surveillance and epidemiological studies.”
Robert Lisak, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and a longtime adviser to the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, commented that “the relationship between vaccines and association with Guillain-Barré syndrome continues to be controversial in part because Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare disorder, has many reported associated illnesses including infections. Many vaccines have been implicated but with the probable exception of the ‘swine flu’ vaccine in the 1970s, most have not stood up to scrutiny.”
With SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines, “the jury is still out,” Dr. Lisak said. “The report from the U.K. is intriguing since they report several cases of an uncommon variant, but the cases from India seem to be more of the usual forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.”
Dr. Lisak noted that, even if an association turns out to be valid, “we are talking about a very low incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines,” one that would not justify avoiding them because of a possible association with Guillain-Barré syndrome.
The GBS-CIDP Foundation, which supports research into Guillain-Barré syndrome and related diseases, has likewise stressed the low risk presented by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, noting on its website that “the risk of death or long-term complications from COVID in adults still far exceeds the risk of any possible risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome by several orders of magnitude.”
None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest related to their research. Dr. Amato is an adviser to the pharmaceutical firms Alexion and Argenx, while Dr. Lisak has received research support or honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Hoffmann–La Roche, and others.
Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare peripheral nerve disorder that can occur after certain types of viral and bacterial infections, has not to date been definitively linked to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or with vaccination against the virus, despite surveillance searching for such associations.
Spikes in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence have previously, but rarely, been associated with outbreaks of other viral diseases, including Zika, but not with vaccination, except for a 1976-1977 swine influenza vaccine campaign in the United States that was seen associated with a slight elevation in risk, and was halted when that risk became known. Since then, all sorts of vaccines in the European Union and United States have come with warnings about Guillain-Barré syndrome in their package inserts – a fact that some Guillain-Barré syndrome experts lament as perpetuating the notion that vaccines cause Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Epidemiologic studies in the United Kingdom and Singapore did not detect increases in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. And as mass vaccination against COVID-19 got underway early this year, experts cautioned against the temptation to attribute incident Guillain-Barré syndrome cases following vaccination to SARS-CoV-2 without careful statistical and epidemiological analysis. Until now reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome have been scant: clinical trials of a viral vector vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson saw one in the placebo arm and another in the intervention arm, while another case was reported following administration of a Pfizer mRNA SARS-Cov-2 vaccine.
Recent case reports
None of the patients had evidence of current SARS-CoV-2 infection.
From India, Boby V. Maramattom, MD, of Aster Medcity in Kochi, India, and colleagues reported on seven severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring between 10 and 14 days after a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. All but one of the patients were women, all had bilateral facial paresis, all progressed to areflexic quadriplegia, and six required respiratory support. Patients’ ages ranged from 43 to 70. Four developed other cranial neuropathies, including abducens palsy and trigeminal sensory nerve involvement, which are rare in reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome from India, Dr. Maramattom and colleagues noted.
The authors argued that their findings “should prompt all physicians to be vigilant in recognizing Guillain-Barré syndrome in patients who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine. While the risk per patient (5.8 per million) may be relatively low, our observations suggest that this clinically distinct [Guillain-Barré syndrome] variant is more severe than usual and may require mechanical ventilation.”
The U.K. cases, reported by Christopher Martin Allen, MD, and colleagues at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, describe bifacial weakness and normal facial sensation in four men between 11 and 22 days after their first doses of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. This type of facial palsy, the authors wrote, was unusual Guillain-Barré syndrome variant that one rapid review found in 3 of 42 European patients diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Dr. Allen and colleagues acknowledged that causality could not be assumed from the temporal relationship of immunization to onset of bifacial weakness in their report, but argued that their findings argued for “robust postvaccination surveillance” and that “the report of a similar syndrome in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests an immunologic response to the spike protein.” If the link is casual, they wrote, “it could be due to a cross-reactive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and components of the peripheral immune system.”
‘The jury is still out’
Asked for comment, neurologist Anthony Amato, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he did not see what the two new studies add to what is already known. “Guillain-Barré syndrome has already been reported temporally following COVID-19 along with accompanying editorials that such temporal occurrences do not imply causation and there is a need for surveillance and epidemiological studies.”
Robert Lisak, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and a longtime adviser to the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, commented that “the relationship between vaccines and association with Guillain-Barré syndrome continues to be controversial in part because Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare disorder, has many reported associated illnesses including infections. Many vaccines have been implicated but with the probable exception of the ‘swine flu’ vaccine in the 1970s, most have not stood up to scrutiny.”
With SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines, “the jury is still out,” Dr. Lisak said. “The report from the U.K. is intriguing since they report several cases of an uncommon variant, but the cases from India seem to be more of the usual forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.”
Dr. Lisak noted that, even if an association turns out to be valid, “we are talking about a very low incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines,” one that would not justify avoiding them because of a possible association with Guillain-Barré syndrome.
The GBS-CIDP Foundation, which supports research into Guillain-Barré syndrome and related diseases, has likewise stressed the low risk presented by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, noting on its website that “the risk of death or long-term complications from COVID in adults still far exceeds the risk of any possible risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome by several orders of magnitude.”
None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest related to their research. Dr. Amato is an adviser to the pharmaceutical firms Alexion and Argenx, while Dr. Lisak has received research support or honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Hoffmann–La Roche, and others.
Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare peripheral nerve disorder that can occur after certain types of viral and bacterial infections, has not to date been definitively linked to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or with vaccination against the virus, despite surveillance searching for such associations.
Spikes in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence have previously, but rarely, been associated with outbreaks of other viral diseases, including Zika, but not with vaccination, except for a 1976-1977 swine influenza vaccine campaign in the United States that was seen associated with a slight elevation in risk, and was halted when that risk became known. Since then, all sorts of vaccines in the European Union and United States have come with warnings about Guillain-Barré syndrome in their package inserts – a fact that some Guillain-Barré syndrome experts lament as perpetuating the notion that vaccines cause Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Epidemiologic studies in the United Kingdom and Singapore did not detect increases in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. And as mass vaccination against COVID-19 got underway early this year, experts cautioned against the temptation to attribute incident Guillain-Barré syndrome cases following vaccination to SARS-CoV-2 without careful statistical and epidemiological analysis. Until now reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome have been scant: clinical trials of a viral vector vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson saw one in the placebo arm and another in the intervention arm, while another case was reported following administration of a Pfizer mRNA SARS-Cov-2 vaccine.
Recent case reports
None of the patients had evidence of current SARS-CoV-2 infection.
From India, Boby V. Maramattom, MD, of Aster Medcity in Kochi, India, and colleagues reported on seven severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring between 10 and 14 days after a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. All but one of the patients were women, all had bilateral facial paresis, all progressed to areflexic quadriplegia, and six required respiratory support. Patients’ ages ranged from 43 to 70. Four developed other cranial neuropathies, including abducens palsy and trigeminal sensory nerve involvement, which are rare in reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome from India, Dr. Maramattom and colleagues noted.
The authors argued that their findings “should prompt all physicians to be vigilant in recognizing Guillain-Barré syndrome in patients who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine. While the risk per patient (5.8 per million) may be relatively low, our observations suggest that this clinically distinct [Guillain-Barré syndrome] variant is more severe than usual and may require mechanical ventilation.”
The U.K. cases, reported by Christopher Martin Allen, MD, and colleagues at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, describe bifacial weakness and normal facial sensation in four men between 11 and 22 days after their first doses of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. This type of facial palsy, the authors wrote, was unusual Guillain-Barré syndrome variant that one rapid review found in 3 of 42 European patients diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Dr. Allen and colleagues acknowledged that causality could not be assumed from the temporal relationship of immunization to onset of bifacial weakness in their report, but argued that their findings argued for “robust postvaccination surveillance” and that “the report of a similar syndrome in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests an immunologic response to the spike protein.” If the link is casual, they wrote, “it could be due to a cross-reactive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and components of the peripheral immune system.”
‘The jury is still out’
Asked for comment, neurologist Anthony Amato, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he did not see what the two new studies add to what is already known. “Guillain-Barré syndrome has already been reported temporally following COVID-19 along with accompanying editorials that such temporal occurrences do not imply causation and there is a need for surveillance and epidemiological studies.”
Robert Lisak, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and a longtime adviser to the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, commented that “the relationship between vaccines and association with Guillain-Barré syndrome continues to be controversial in part because Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare disorder, has many reported associated illnesses including infections. Many vaccines have been implicated but with the probable exception of the ‘swine flu’ vaccine in the 1970s, most have not stood up to scrutiny.”
With SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines, “the jury is still out,” Dr. Lisak said. “The report from the U.K. is intriguing since they report several cases of an uncommon variant, but the cases from India seem to be more of the usual forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.”
Dr. Lisak noted that, even if an association turns out to be valid, “we are talking about a very low incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines,” one that would not justify avoiding them because of a possible association with Guillain-Barré syndrome.
The GBS-CIDP Foundation, which supports research into Guillain-Barré syndrome and related diseases, has likewise stressed the low risk presented by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, noting on its website that “the risk of death or long-term complications from COVID in adults still far exceeds the risk of any possible risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome by several orders of magnitude.”
None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest related to their research. Dr. Amato is an adviser to the pharmaceutical firms Alexion and Argenx, while Dr. Lisak has received research support or honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Hoffmann–La Roche, and others.
FROM ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
Potential first-in-class, targeted therapy for myasthenia gravis
(gMG), new research suggests. Results from the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial showed that reduction in disease burden and improvement in strength and quality of life in patients with gMG were consistent across four MG-specific scales for those receiving the novel treatment. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable, the researchers noted.
Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work, and the side effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard, Jr., MD, Distinguished Professor of Neuromuscular Disease, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The ADAPT results are “important for the MG community, and I am hopeful efgartigimod will provide a first-in-class targeted therapy that can be dosed in an individual way for people living with this chronic autoimmune disease,” Dr. Howard added in a news release.
The findings were published online June 17 in Lancet Neurology.
Targeted molecular therapy
The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
Efgartigimod is an investigational antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.
The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.
The ADAPT trial was conducted at 56 neuromuscular academic and community centers in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Japan. The study included 167 adults with gMG, regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of at least 5 (greater than 50% non-ocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.
For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.
ADAPT was designed to allow an individualized treatment approach with an initial treatment cycle followed by a variable number of subsequent treatment cycles, the investigators noted.
Primary endpoint met
The primary efficacy endpoint was number of acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (AChR-Ab+) patients who achieved a clinically meaningful response on the MG-ADL score. This was defined as at least a 2-point improvement from baseline for 4 or more consecutive weeks. Forty-four (68%) of 65 AChR-Ab+ patients treated with efgartigimod met this endpoint versus 19 (30%) of 64 patients treated with placebo (odds ratio, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-11.53; P < .0001).
Many of the patients treated with efgartigimod showed improvement “beyond the clinically meaningful threshold, achieving up to 9-point reductions in MG-ADL,” the investigators reported. In addition, 40% of the efgartigimod group attained an MG-ADL score of 0 or 1 (minimal symptom expression) in cycle 1 versus 11% of the placebo group (P < .0001).
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of AChR-Ab+ patients responded to the first cycle of efgartigimod, and most of these patients (83%) responded to treatment within the first 2 weeks. Among the AChR-Ab+ participants who responded to efgartigimod in cycle 1, the duration of responder status was 6 to 7 weeks in 32% of patients, 8 to 11 weeks in 23% of patients, and 12 weeks or more in 34% of patients.
Safety profile
“Some patients never required retreatment over the 26-week period that they were under observation,” Dr. Howard said. “Patients want to be individuals. They don’t want to be assigned to a regimented therapy, and I think these results show that this therapy can be tailored to the individual patient, rather than simply giving it to them in a cookbook fashion,” he added.
The safety profile of efgartigimod was comparable to placebo. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, nasopharyngitis, nausea, diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.
Four (5%) efgartigimod-treated patients had a serious adverse event, which included thrombocytosis, rectal adenocarcinoma, worsening MG, and depression.
The novel agent is currently under review with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of gMG, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of Dec. 17. If approved, it would become the first FDA-approved FcRn antagonist.
Expanding therapeutic landscape
In a linked commentary, Shigeaki Suzuki, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, noted that the therapeutic landscape for patients with MG is “expanding year by year,” with several additional complement inhibitors and FcRn antagonists now in phase 3 testing.
“Biological drugs should be preferentially used as the treatment for patients with refractory myasthenia gravis, although the definition of refractory myasthenia gravis is different depending on the criteria used,” Dr. Suzuki wrote.
He noted that when “cost-effectiveness is not taken into account, targeted molecular therapy might be used widely” in patients with MG.
“Risks of myasthenic exacerbation and crises should be substantially decreased, particularly in patients with refractory myasthenia gravis,” Dr. Suzuki added.
The ADAPT study was supported by argenx. Dr. Howard has reported receiving research support from argenx, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and Ra Pharmaceuticals; honoraria from argenx, Alexion, Immunovant, Ra, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Viela Bio; and nonfinancial support from argenx, Alexion, Ra, and Toleranzia. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Suzuki has reported relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Japan Blood Products Organization, and Asahi Kasei Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(gMG), new research suggests. Results from the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial showed that reduction in disease burden and improvement in strength and quality of life in patients with gMG were consistent across four MG-specific scales for those receiving the novel treatment. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable, the researchers noted.
Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work, and the side effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard, Jr., MD, Distinguished Professor of Neuromuscular Disease, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The ADAPT results are “important for the MG community, and I am hopeful efgartigimod will provide a first-in-class targeted therapy that can be dosed in an individual way for people living with this chronic autoimmune disease,” Dr. Howard added in a news release.
The findings were published online June 17 in Lancet Neurology.
Targeted molecular therapy
The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
Efgartigimod is an investigational antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.
The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.
The ADAPT trial was conducted at 56 neuromuscular academic and community centers in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Japan. The study included 167 adults with gMG, regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of at least 5 (greater than 50% non-ocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.
For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.
ADAPT was designed to allow an individualized treatment approach with an initial treatment cycle followed by a variable number of subsequent treatment cycles, the investigators noted.
Primary endpoint met
The primary efficacy endpoint was number of acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (AChR-Ab+) patients who achieved a clinically meaningful response on the MG-ADL score. This was defined as at least a 2-point improvement from baseline for 4 or more consecutive weeks. Forty-four (68%) of 65 AChR-Ab+ patients treated with efgartigimod met this endpoint versus 19 (30%) of 64 patients treated with placebo (odds ratio, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-11.53; P < .0001).
Many of the patients treated with efgartigimod showed improvement “beyond the clinically meaningful threshold, achieving up to 9-point reductions in MG-ADL,” the investigators reported. In addition, 40% of the efgartigimod group attained an MG-ADL score of 0 or 1 (minimal symptom expression) in cycle 1 versus 11% of the placebo group (P < .0001).
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of AChR-Ab+ patients responded to the first cycle of efgartigimod, and most of these patients (83%) responded to treatment within the first 2 weeks. Among the AChR-Ab+ participants who responded to efgartigimod in cycle 1, the duration of responder status was 6 to 7 weeks in 32% of patients, 8 to 11 weeks in 23% of patients, and 12 weeks or more in 34% of patients.
Safety profile
“Some patients never required retreatment over the 26-week period that they were under observation,” Dr. Howard said. “Patients want to be individuals. They don’t want to be assigned to a regimented therapy, and I think these results show that this therapy can be tailored to the individual patient, rather than simply giving it to them in a cookbook fashion,” he added.
The safety profile of efgartigimod was comparable to placebo. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, nasopharyngitis, nausea, diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.
Four (5%) efgartigimod-treated patients had a serious adverse event, which included thrombocytosis, rectal adenocarcinoma, worsening MG, and depression.
The novel agent is currently under review with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of gMG, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of Dec. 17. If approved, it would become the first FDA-approved FcRn antagonist.
Expanding therapeutic landscape
In a linked commentary, Shigeaki Suzuki, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, noted that the therapeutic landscape for patients with MG is “expanding year by year,” with several additional complement inhibitors and FcRn antagonists now in phase 3 testing.
“Biological drugs should be preferentially used as the treatment for patients with refractory myasthenia gravis, although the definition of refractory myasthenia gravis is different depending on the criteria used,” Dr. Suzuki wrote.
He noted that when “cost-effectiveness is not taken into account, targeted molecular therapy might be used widely” in patients with MG.
“Risks of myasthenic exacerbation and crises should be substantially decreased, particularly in patients with refractory myasthenia gravis,” Dr. Suzuki added.
The ADAPT study was supported by argenx. Dr. Howard has reported receiving research support from argenx, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and Ra Pharmaceuticals; honoraria from argenx, Alexion, Immunovant, Ra, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Viela Bio; and nonfinancial support from argenx, Alexion, Ra, and Toleranzia. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Suzuki has reported relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Japan Blood Products Organization, and Asahi Kasei Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(gMG), new research suggests. Results from the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial showed that reduction in disease burden and improvement in strength and quality of life in patients with gMG were consistent across four MG-specific scales for those receiving the novel treatment. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable, the researchers noted.
Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work, and the side effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard, Jr., MD, Distinguished Professor of Neuromuscular Disease, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The ADAPT results are “important for the MG community, and I am hopeful efgartigimod will provide a first-in-class targeted therapy that can be dosed in an individual way for people living with this chronic autoimmune disease,” Dr. Howard added in a news release.
The findings were published online June 17 in Lancet Neurology.
Targeted molecular therapy
The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
Efgartigimod is an investigational antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.
The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.
The ADAPT trial was conducted at 56 neuromuscular academic and community centers in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Japan. The study included 167 adults with gMG, regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of at least 5 (greater than 50% non-ocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.
For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.
ADAPT was designed to allow an individualized treatment approach with an initial treatment cycle followed by a variable number of subsequent treatment cycles, the investigators noted.
Primary endpoint met
The primary efficacy endpoint was number of acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (AChR-Ab+) patients who achieved a clinically meaningful response on the MG-ADL score. This was defined as at least a 2-point improvement from baseline for 4 or more consecutive weeks. Forty-four (68%) of 65 AChR-Ab+ patients treated with efgartigimod met this endpoint versus 19 (30%) of 64 patients treated with placebo (odds ratio, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-11.53; P < .0001).
Many of the patients treated with efgartigimod showed improvement “beyond the clinically meaningful threshold, achieving up to 9-point reductions in MG-ADL,” the investigators reported. In addition, 40% of the efgartigimod group attained an MG-ADL score of 0 or 1 (minimal symptom expression) in cycle 1 versus 11% of the placebo group (P < .0001).
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of AChR-Ab+ patients responded to the first cycle of efgartigimod, and most of these patients (83%) responded to treatment within the first 2 weeks. Among the AChR-Ab+ participants who responded to efgartigimod in cycle 1, the duration of responder status was 6 to 7 weeks in 32% of patients, 8 to 11 weeks in 23% of patients, and 12 weeks or more in 34% of patients.
Safety profile
“Some patients never required retreatment over the 26-week period that they were under observation,” Dr. Howard said. “Patients want to be individuals. They don’t want to be assigned to a regimented therapy, and I think these results show that this therapy can be tailored to the individual patient, rather than simply giving it to them in a cookbook fashion,” he added.
The safety profile of efgartigimod was comparable to placebo. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, nasopharyngitis, nausea, diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.
Four (5%) efgartigimod-treated patients had a serious adverse event, which included thrombocytosis, rectal adenocarcinoma, worsening MG, and depression.
The novel agent is currently under review with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of gMG, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of Dec. 17. If approved, it would become the first FDA-approved FcRn antagonist.
Expanding therapeutic landscape
In a linked commentary, Shigeaki Suzuki, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, noted that the therapeutic landscape for patients with MG is “expanding year by year,” with several additional complement inhibitors and FcRn antagonists now in phase 3 testing.
“Biological drugs should be preferentially used as the treatment for patients with refractory myasthenia gravis, although the definition of refractory myasthenia gravis is different depending on the criteria used,” Dr. Suzuki wrote.
He noted that when “cost-effectiveness is not taken into account, targeted molecular therapy might be used widely” in patients with MG.
“Risks of myasthenic exacerbation and crises should be substantially decreased, particularly in patients with refractory myasthenia gravis,” Dr. Suzuki added.
The ADAPT study was supported by argenx. Dr. Howard has reported receiving research support from argenx, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and Ra Pharmaceuticals; honoraria from argenx, Alexion, Immunovant, Ra, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Viela Bio; and nonfinancial support from argenx, Alexion, Ra, and Toleranzia. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Suzuki has reported relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Japan Blood Products Organization, and Asahi Kasei Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Lancet Neurology
Many comatose TBI patients recover consciousness during rehab
according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.
“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.
To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).
Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).
Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope
The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.
“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.
That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?
“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists
“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”
“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”
She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.
“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”
The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.
according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.
“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.
To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).
Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).
Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope
The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.
“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.
That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?
“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists
“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”
“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”
She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.
“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”
The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.
according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.
“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.
To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).
Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).
Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope
The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.
“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.
That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?
“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists
“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”
“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”
She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.
“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”
The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Deep brain stimulation is effective over the long haul
, new research indicates.
“Subthalamic nucleus stimulation is a well recognized treatment used for improving motor conditions and quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease. Our study, for the first time, supports its efficacy in the very long term – 15 years after surgery and 25 years since the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” said Elena Moro, MD, PhD, Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France.
“This information is relevant for physicians, patients, and their families when they need to decide about the surgical option to deal with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Moro.
The study was published online June 2 in Neurology.
‘Don’t delay’
The findings are based on 51 patients with Parkinson’s disease who underwent treatment with bilateral STN-DBS for an average of 17 years (range, 15-24 years). Their average age at diagnosis was 40 years, and the average age at device implantation was 51 years.
The results demonstrate that STN-DBS continues to be effective for motor complications for longer than 15 years, reducing time spent with dyskinesia by 75% and time spent in the off-state by 58.7%. This is similar to the amount of improvement seen 1 year after surgery.
Doses of dopaminergic medications continued to be low at long-term follow-up; dosing was reduced by 50.6% compared with baseline.
There was also continued improvement in quality of life. Scores on the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire in the very long term were 13.8% better compared with baseline.
“Few and mostly manageable device-related adverse events were observed during the follow-up,” the authors reported in their article.
“Deep brain stimulation is already recommended when a patient’s conditions are not optimized by medical treatment. Patients with Parkinson’s disease without dementia and in good general health conditions are the best candidates for this surgery,” said Dr. Moro.
“Taking into account our results and the data available in the literature, DBS surgery should not be delayed when motor conditions and quality of life decline despite medical treatment, if patients meet the inclusion criteria,” she added.
A revolutionary treatment
The authors of an accompanying editorial say these results, which indicate better motor outcomes with less medication, “reinforce why STN-DBS has revolutionized treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease.”
Kelvin Chou, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and David Charles, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that longer disease duration is associated with an increase in the likelihood of cognitive impairment and psychosis, both of which are risk factors for nursing home placement, and they limit the ability to use dopaminergic medications.
Although many of the patients in this cohort experienced hallucinations and psychosis over the long follow-up period, “one can imagine that the number and severity would be higher without DBS therapy,” they wrote.
Key caveats, said Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles, are that the results are based on a highly selected cohort and that the patients were managed by experts in the field of movement disorders and DBS.
Additionally, the patients’ conditions were highly responsive to levodopa; there was a 75.3% baseline improvement in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor scores from the off-state to the on-state. In general, most DBS centers consider a levodopa response of approximately 30% as an acceptable cutoff for moving forward with STN-DBS, they noted.
Despite these caveats and limitations, the results of the study are important with respect to counseling potential candidates for DBS, Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles said.
“A common question that patients have is, ‘How long do the benefits of DBS last?’ We can now reassure them that, at least for STN-DBS, improvement in motor complications lasts beyond 15 years and is often accompanied by improvement in quality of life. In other words, with STN-DBS, we can uncomplicate their motor complications for the long haul,” the editorial writers concluded.
The research had no targeted funding. Moro has received honoraria from Medtronic and Abbott for consulting and lecturing and an educational grant from Boston and Newronika. A complete list of disclosures is available with the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research indicates.
“Subthalamic nucleus stimulation is a well recognized treatment used for improving motor conditions and quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease. Our study, for the first time, supports its efficacy in the very long term – 15 years after surgery and 25 years since the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” said Elena Moro, MD, PhD, Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France.
“This information is relevant for physicians, patients, and their families when they need to decide about the surgical option to deal with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Moro.
The study was published online June 2 in Neurology.
‘Don’t delay’
The findings are based on 51 patients with Parkinson’s disease who underwent treatment with bilateral STN-DBS for an average of 17 years (range, 15-24 years). Their average age at diagnosis was 40 years, and the average age at device implantation was 51 years.
The results demonstrate that STN-DBS continues to be effective for motor complications for longer than 15 years, reducing time spent with dyskinesia by 75% and time spent in the off-state by 58.7%. This is similar to the amount of improvement seen 1 year after surgery.
Doses of dopaminergic medications continued to be low at long-term follow-up; dosing was reduced by 50.6% compared with baseline.
There was also continued improvement in quality of life. Scores on the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire in the very long term were 13.8% better compared with baseline.
“Few and mostly manageable device-related adverse events were observed during the follow-up,” the authors reported in their article.
“Deep brain stimulation is already recommended when a patient’s conditions are not optimized by medical treatment. Patients with Parkinson’s disease without dementia and in good general health conditions are the best candidates for this surgery,” said Dr. Moro.
“Taking into account our results and the data available in the literature, DBS surgery should not be delayed when motor conditions and quality of life decline despite medical treatment, if patients meet the inclusion criteria,” she added.
A revolutionary treatment
The authors of an accompanying editorial say these results, which indicate better motor outcomes with less medication, “reinforce why STN-DBS has revolutionized treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease.”
Kelvin Chou, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and David Charles, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that longer disease duration is associated with an increase in the likelihood of cognitive impairment and psychosis, both of which are risk factors for nursing home placement, and they limit the ability to use dopaminergic medications.
Although many of the patients in this cohort experienced hallucinations and psychosis over the long follow-up period, “one can imagine that the number and severity would be higher without DBS therapy,” they wrote.
Key caveats, said Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles, are that the results are based on a highly selected cohort and that the patients were managed by experts in the field of movement disorders and DBS.
Additionally, the patients’ conditions were highly responsive to levodopa; there was a 75.3% baseline improvement in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor scores from the off-state to the on-state. In general, most DBS centers consider a levodopa response of approximately 30% as an acceptable cutoff for moving forward with STN-DBS, they noted.
Despite these caveats and limitations, the results of the study are important with respect to counseling potential candidates for DBS, Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles said.
“A common question that patients have is, ‘How long do the benefits of DBS last?’ We can now reassure them that, at least for STN-DBS, improvement in motor complications lasts beyond 15 years and is often accompanied by improvement in quality of life. In other words, with STN-DBS, we can uncomplicate their motor complications for the long haul,” the editorial writers concluded.
The research had no targeted funding. Moro has received honoraria from Medtronic and Abbott for consulting and lecturing and an educational grant from Boston and Newronika. A complete list of disclosures is available with the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research indicates.
“Subthalamic nucleus stimulation is a well recognized treatment used for improving motor conditions and quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease. Our study, for the first time, supports its efficacy in the very long term – 15 years after surgery and 25 years since the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” said Elena Moro, MD, PhD, Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France.
“This information is relevant for physicians, patients, and their families when they need to decide about the surgical option to deal with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Moro.
The study was published online June 2 in Neurology.
‘Don’t delay’
The findings are based on 51 patients with Parkinson’s disease who underwent treatment with bilateral STN-DBS for an average of 17 years (range, 15-24 years). Their average age at diagnosis was 40 years, and the average age at device implantation was 51 years.
The results demonstrate that STN-DBS continues to be effective for motor complications for longer than 15 years, reducing time spent with dyskinesia by 75% and time spent in the off-state by 58.7%. This is similar to the amount of improvement seen 1 year after surgery.
Doses of dopaminergic medications continued to be low at long-term follow-up; dosing was reduced by 50.6% compared with baseline.
There was also continued improvement in quality of life. Scores on the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire in the very long term were 13.8% better compared with baseline.
“Few and mostly manageable device-related adverse events were observed during the follow-up,” the authors reported in their article.
“Deep brain stimulation is already recommended when a patient’s conditions are not optimized by medical treatment. Patients with Parkinson’s disease without dementia and in good general health conditions are the best candidates for this surgery,” said Dr. Moro.
“Taking into account our results and the data available in the literature, DBS surgery should not be delayed when motor conditions and quality of life decline despite medical treatment, if patients meet the inclusion criteria,” she added.
A revolutionary treatment
The authors of an accompanying editorial say these results, which indicate better motor outcomes with less medication, “reinforce why STN-DBS has revolutionized treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease.”
Kelvin Chou, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and David Charles, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that longer disease duration is associated with an increase in the likelihood of cognitive impairment and psychosis, both of which are risk factors for nursing home placement, and they limit the ability to use dopaminergic medications.
Although many of the patients in this cohort experienced hallucinations and psychosis over the long follow-up period, “one can imagine that the number and severity would be higher without DBS therapy,” they wrote.
Key caveats, said Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles, are that the results are based on a highly selected cohort and that the patients were managed by experts in the field of movement disorders and DBS.
Additionally, the patients’ conditions were highly responsive to levodopa; there was a 75.3% baseline improvement in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor scores from the off-state to the on-state. In general, most DBS centers consider a levodopa response of approximately 30% as an acceptable cutoff for moving forward with STN-DBS, they noted.
Despite these caveats and limitations, the results of the study are important with respect to counseling potential candidates for DBS, Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles said.
“A common question that patients have is, ‘How long do the benefits of DBS last?’ We can now reassure them that, at least for STN-DBS, improvement in motor complications lasts beyond 15 years and is often accompanied by improvement in quality of life. In other words, with STN-DBS, we can uncomplicate their motor complications for the long haul,” the editorial writers concluded.
The research had no targeted funding. Moro has received honoraria from Medtronic and Abbott for consulting and lecturing and an educational grant from Boston and Newronika. A complete list of disclosures is available with the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Neurology
Neurologists brace and prepare for long-COVID fallout
“If there’s one universal truth amongst all the patients I’ve interviewed, it’s that they’re often brushed aside, pigeonholed, or, frankly, abandoned,” said Greg Vanichkachorn, MD, MPH, a family physician and founder of Mayo Clinic’s COVID-19 Activity Rehabilitation Program (CARP).
Take a nap. Tough it out. Push through it. Dr. Vanichkachorn describes the frustration voiced by thousands of patients whose lives continue to be disrupted and thrown into upheaval.
Brain fog. Cognitive dysfunction. Headaches. These are just a few of the manifestations of what the National Institutes of Health has termed post-acute sequelae of SARS COVID-2 (PASC), more commonly known as long-COVID.
PASC is loosely defined as symptoms and/or sequelae that persist for several weeks to months after the initial infection has cleared.
A total of 33.6% (95% confidence interval, 11.17-34.07) of patients with COVID-19 experience neurologic sequelae in the first 6 months following resolution of the infection. Almost half of cases (12.8%; 95% CI, 12.36-13.33) represented first-time diagnoses.
“Anecdotally, the longer we go into this, and the more people that, in the past, have been infected with COVID-19, the more patients will be seeing neurologists with some of these complaints,” said Ralph Sacco, MD, professor and Olemberg chair of neurology at University of Miami, and past president of the American Academy of Neurology.
Neurologic detritus
Further complicating the epidemiologic picture is the broad array of clinical and functional symptoms. “What we call long-haul COVID is not a single entity,” explained Michel Toledano, MD, a neurology consultant and a member of the CARP team at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients present with persistent or emergent polysymptomatic and multisystemic diseases that often include neurologic symptoms, he said. In many circumstances, they had an acute infection with either very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.
“There’s no doubt that these people are experiencing significant neurologic symptoms, but it remains unclear whether the driving factor is mainly systemic or the nervous system independently of what is happening in the body,” he said.
Like patients with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), patients recovering from confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections experience a variety of self-reported neurologic symptoms that vary in terms of time frame, duration, and severity.
Take Jacqueline Jolly, for example, a 50-year-old single mother and construction permit contractor living outside of Tampa, Florida. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 in January 2021. Jolly explained that she was never sick enough to be admitted to the hospital and yet is still not close to full recovery. Lingering, debilitating symptoms include executive function challenges, anosmia, headaches, and paresthesia that frequently bring her to the edge of losing consciousness. She has not returned to work, despite multiple attempts.
Vicky Nunally, a 35-year-old single mother and medical office assistant who lives in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia, recounted that she landed in the intensive care unit with a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Roughly 6 months later, she continues to experience debilitating headaches, brain fog, and cognitive delays. Her endometriosis has flared up. She says that she is depressed, anxious, and has returned to therapy. “It makes you feel crazy,” she said.
Debilitating, pervasive symptoms
Findings from an international survey of 3,762 respondents that was published on April 21 in medRXiv underscore that PASC occurs predominantly in middle-aged women (78.9% were women; 31% were aged 40-49 years; 25.0% were aged 50-59 years). For the most part, it manifests similarly among people with prior confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections. In the study, symptoms were reported in both cohorts well past the initial infection; symptoms persisted past 90 days in 96% of patients and for at least 6 months in 65.2%.
Similarly, a recent study showed that 68% of patients who were enrolled in Mayo Clinic’s CARP as of June 2020 were women, middle aged (mean age, 45 ± 14.2 years), and presented roughly 3 months (94.4 ± 65 days) post diagnosis. Of these patients, 75% had not been previously hospitalized.
In both studies, fatigue and cognitive dysfunction were consistently cited as the most debilitating and pervasive manifestations lasting more than 6 months. Others included postexertional (physical or mental) malaise, sensorimotor symptoms, headaches, and memory problems.
Reports of even more severe neurologic first-time diagnoses are emerging. Findings from the Lancet Psychiatry study showed there was a small but clinically relevant risk for a range of conditions that included intracranial hemorrhage (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20), ischemic stroke (0.43%; 95% CI, 0.36-0.52), parkinsonism (0.07%; 95% CI, 0.05-0.12), and nerve root/plexus disorders (2.69%; 95% CI, 2.51-2.89).
Dr. Toledano noted that he’s also seen patients who developed autonomic/small-fiber dysfunction. Preliminary data from a retrospective chart review suggest that the most likely diagnosis is orthostatic intolerance without tachycardia or hypotension.
In the study, 63% (17) of the 27 participants who met the inclusion criteria had abnormal results on function testing, but Composite Autonomic Severity Score results indicated mostly mild disease (sudomotor range, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovagal, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovascular adrenergic, 0-4 [median, 0]).
“The pattern that’s emerging is consistent with deconditioning,” Dr. Toledano said. “However, a small proportion of patients do have evidence of damage to the nervous system, which is something we’ve seen with other viruses.”
Proliferation of long-COVID clinics
A few of these patients with orthostatic intolerance developed postural tachycardia syndrome or experienced exacerbations of preexisting sensory or autonomic small-fiber neuropathies. “These post-viral, autonomic neuropathies tend to be self-limiting, but we’re starting to see different levels of involvement,” Dr. Toledano explained. At present, causality and/or underlying mechanisms are unclear.
Speaking on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Sacco acknowledged the challenges that lie ahead. “Like any neurological symptom that continues to affect a patient’s quality of life, you may need to seek the expertise of a neurologist. The only issue is that some may still not be sure exactly what to do; we don’t have all the data yet,” he said.
On the flip side, he pointed to the lessons of the past year and how quickly health care systems were able to pivot to deal with the pandemic and critically ill patients, then pivot again to disseminate vaccines, and how they are pivoting yet again to address PASC.
Across the nation, numerous hospitals and health care systems and even small private clinics have launched clinics that focus on long-COVID, including Mayo.
The program has a multidisciplinary, collaborative framework and offers both face-to-face and video telemedicine consultations. The latter are geared toward ensuring that under-resourced populations can access needed care and assistance.
“At Mayo, we have a centralized triage system to help target patients’ visits so that appropriate subspecialties and studies can be preordered,” explained Dr. Toledano. During these visits, patients are assessed for underlying conditions and possible signs of decompensation, as well as functional and physical needs and psychosocial challenges. Thereafter, patients enter either CARP, which offers active rehabilitation for up to 3 months after resolution of the acute infection, or the Post-COVID Care Center, which focuses on patients whose condition is not improving or who are demonstrating signs of central sensitization.
An uphill battle
Both programs incorporate individually paced occupational and physical therapy aimed at ameliorating symptoms, restoring function, developing psychosocial coping skills, and, ultimately, facilitating a return to work. “The idea is, if we can meet with these patients sooner than later and help them recover in an appropriate fashion, they will exit the program faster,” Dr. Vanichkachorn said. “We do see a group of patients who tend to get better right around the 4-month period.”
Although telemedicine provides an opportunity for clinicians outside these hospital systems to engage patients, Dr. Vanichkachorn pointed out that almost all the initial treatments can be offered in the local community by a provider who has adequate time and knowledge of the condition.
He also acknowledged the potential for an uphill battle, especially among those who cling to the belief that PASC is simply a manifestation of anxiety or depression. “This is something that we’ve seen previously with SARS and MERS, as well as in conjunction with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue, only now with greater magnitude,” he said. “This is a real condition that has important and huge ramifications on a person’s ability to function.”
The silver lining is that last December, the NIH announced that it was allocating $1.1 billion for research through its NIH PASC Initiative. Like other institutions, Mayo is waiting to hear what it has been awarded. In the meantime, it has developed a biorepository of patient samples to better understand pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying PASC and to identify possible biomarkers that differentiate these patients.
Despite the challenges, Dr. Vanichkachorn is hopeful. “If we can get a concrete understanding of what is occurring on the chemical level and develop diagnostic tests, then the education will follow. Providers won’t be able to ignore it any longer,” he said.
The interviewees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“If there’s one universal truth amongst all the patients I’ve interviewed, it’s that they’re often brushed aside, pigeonholed, or, frankly, abandoned,” said Greg Vanichkachorn, MD, MPH, a family physician and founder of Mayo Clinic’s COVID-19 Activity Rehabilitation Program (CARP).
Take a nap. Tough it out. Push through it. Dr. Vanichkachorn describes the frustration voiced by thousands of patients whose lives continue to be disrupted and thrown into upheaval.
Brain fog. Cognitive dysfunction. Headaches. These are just a few of the manifestations of what the National Institutes of Health has termed post-acute sequelae of SARS COVID-2 (PASC), more commonly known as long-COVID.
PASC is loosely defined as symptoms and/or sequelae that persist for several weeks to months after the initial infection has cleared.
A total of 33.6% (95% confidence interval, 11.17-34.07) of patients with COVID-19 experience neurologic sequelae in the first 6 months following resolution of the infection. Almost half of cases (12.8%; 95% CI, 12.36-13.33) represented first-time diagnoses.
“Anecdotally, the longer we go into this, and the more people that, in the past, have been infected with COVID-19, the more patients will be seeing neurologists with some of these complaints,” said Ralph Sacco, MD, professor and Olemberg chair of neurology at University of Miami, and past president of the American Academy of Neurology.
Neurologic detritus
Further complicating the epidemiologic picture is the broad array of clinical and functional symptoms. “What we call long-haul COVID is not a single entity,” explained Michel Toledano, MD, a neurology consultant and a member of the CARP team at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients present with persistent or emergent polysymptomatic and multisystemic diseases that often include neurologic symptoms, he said. In many circumstances, they had an acute infection with either very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.
“There’s no doubt that these people are experiencing significant neurologic symptoms, but it remains unclear whether the driving factor is mainly systemic or the nervous system independently of what is happening in the body,” he said.
Like patients with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), patients recovering from confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections experience a variety of self-reported neurologic symptoms that vary in terms of time frame, duration, and severity.
Take Jacqueline Jolly, for example, a 50-year-old single mother and construction permit contractor living outside of Tampa, Florida. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 in January 2021. Jolly explained that she was never sick enough to be admitted to the hospital and yet is still not close to full recovery. Lingering, debilitating symptoms include executive function challenges, anosmia, headaches, and paresthesia that frequently bring her to the edge of losing consciousness. She has not returned to work, despite multiple attempts.
Vicky Nunally, a 35-year-old single mother and medical office assistant who lives in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia, recounted that she landed in the intensive care unit with a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Roughly 6 months later, she continues to experience debilitating headaches, brain fog, and cognitive delays. Her endometriosis has flared up. She says that she is depressed, anxious, and has returned to therapy. “It makes you feel crazy,” she said.
Debilitating, pervasive symptoms
Findings from an international survey of 3,762 respondents that was published on April 21 in medRXiv underscore that PASC occurs predominantly in middle-aged women (78.9% were women; 31% were aged 40-49 years; 25.0% were aged 50-59 years). For the most part, it manifests similarly among people with prior confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections. In the study, symptoms were reported in both cohorts well past the initial infection; symptoms persisted past 90 days in 96% of patients and for at least 6 months in 65.2%.
Similarly, a recent study showed that 68% of patients who were enrolled in Mayo Clinic’s CARP as of June 2020 were women, middle aged (mean age, 45 ± 14.2 years), and presented roughly 3 months (94.4 ± 65 days) post diagnosis. Of these patients, 75% had not been previously hospitalized.
In both studies, fatigue and cognitive dysfunction were consistently cited as the most debilitating and pervasive manifestations lasting more than 6 months. Others included postexertional (physical or mental) malaise, sensorimotor symptoms, headaches, and memory problems.
Reports of even more severe neurologic first-time diagnoses are emerging. Findings from the Lancet Psychiatry study showed there was a small but clinically relevant risk for a range of conditions that included intracranial hemorrhage (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20), ischemic stroke (0.43%; 95% CI, 0.36-0.52), parkinsonism (0.07%; 95% CI, 0.05-0.12), and nerve root/plexus disorders (2.69%; 95% CI, 2.51-2.89).
Dr. Toledano noted that he’s also seen patients who developed autonomic/small-fiber dysfunction. Preliminary data from a retrospective chart review suggest that the most likely diagnosis is orthostatic intolerance without tachycardia or hypotension.
In the study, 63% (17) of the 27 participants who met the inclusion criteria had abnormal results on function testing, but Composite Autonomic Severity Score results indicated mostly mild disease (sudomotor range, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovagal, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovascular adrenergic, 0-4 [median, 0]).
“The pattern that’s emerging is consistent with deconditioning,” Dr. Toledano said. “However, a small proportion of patients do have evidence of damage to the nervous system, which is something we’ve seen with other viruses.”
Proliferation of long-COVID clinics
A few of these patients with orthostatic intolerance developed postural tachycardia syndrome or experienced exacerbations of preexisting sensory or autonomic small-fiber neuropathies. “These post-viral, autonomic neuropathies tend to be self-limiting, but we’re starting to see different levels of involvement,” Dr. Toledano explained. At present, causality and/or underlying mechanisms are unclear.
Speaking on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Sacco acknowledged the challenges that lie ahead. “Like any neurological symptom that continues to affect a patient’s quality of life, you may need to seek the expertise of a neurologist. The only issue is that some may still not be sure exactly what to do; we don’t have all the data yet,” he said.
On the flip side, he pointed to the lessons of the past year and how quickly health care systems were able to pivot to deal with the pandemic and critically ill patients, then pivot again to disseminate vaccines, and how they are pivoting yet again to address PASC.
Across the nation, numerous hospitals and health care systems and even small private clinics have launched clinics that focus on long-COVID, including Mayo.
The program has a multidisciplinary, collaborative framework and offers both face-to-face and video telemedicine consultations. The latter are geared toward ensuring that under-resourced populations can access needed care and assistance.
“At Mayo, we have a centralized triage system to help target patients’ visits so that appropriate subspecialties and studies can be preordered,” explained Dr. Toledano. During these visits, patients are assessed for underlying conditions and possible signs of decompensation, as well as functional and physical needs and psychosocial challenges. Thereafter, patients enter either CARP, which offers active rehabilitation for up to 3 months after resolution of the acute infection, or the Post-COVID Care Center, which focuses on patients whose condition is not improving or who are demonstrating signs of central sensitization.
An uphill battle
Both programs incorporate individually paced occupational and physical therapy aimed at ameliorating symptoms, restoring function, developing psychosocial coping skills, and, ultimately, facilitating a return to work. “The idea is, if we can meet with these patients sooner than later and help them recover in an appropriate fashion, they will exit the program faster,” Dr. Vanichkachorn said. “We do see a group of patients who tend to get better right around the 4-month period.”
Although telemedicine provides an opportunity for clinicians outside these hospital systems to engage patients, Dr. Vanichkachorn pointed out that almost all the initial treatments can be offered in the local community by a provider who has adequate time and knowledge of the condition.
He also acknowledged the potential for an uphill battle, especially among those who cling to the belief that PASC is simply a manifestation of anxiety or depression. “This is something that we’ve seen previously with SARS and MERS, as well as in conjunction with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue, only now with greater magnitude,” he said. “This is a real condition that has important and huge ramifications on a person’s ability to function.”
The silver lining is that last December, the NIH announced that it was allocating $1.1 billion for research through its NIH PASC Initiative. Like other institutions, Mayo is waiting to hear what it has been awarded. In the meantime, it has developed a biorepository of patient samples to better understand pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying PASC and to identify possible biomarkers that differentiate these patients.
Despite the challenges, Dr. Vanichkachorn is hopeful. “If we can get a concrete understanding of what is occurring on the chemical level and develop diagnostic tests, then the education will follow. Providers won’t be able to ignore it any longer,” he said.
The interviewees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“If there’s one universal truth amongst all the patients I’ve interviewed, it’s that they’re often brushed aside, pigeonholed, or, frankly, abandoned,” said Greg Vanichkachorn, MD, MPH, a family physician and founder of Mayo Clinic’s COVID-19 Activity Rehabilitation Program (CARP).
Take a nap. Tough it out. Push through it. Dr. Vanichkachorn describes the frustration voiced by thousands of patients whose lives continue to be disrupted and thrown into upheaval.
Brain fog. Cognitive dysfunction. Headaches. These are just a few of the manifestations of what the National Institutes of Health has termed post-acute sequelae of SARS COVID-2 (PASC), more commonly known as long-COVID.
PASC is loosely defined as symptoms and/or sequelae that persist for several weeks to months after the initial infection has cleared.
A total of 33.6% (95% confidence interval, 11.17-34.07) of patients with COVID-19 experience neurologic sequelae in the first 6 months following resolution of the infection. Almost half of cases (12.8%; 95% CI, 12.36-13.33) represented first-time diagnoses.
“Anecdotally, the longer we go into this, and the more people that, in the past, have been infected with COVID-19, the more patients will be seeing neurologists with some of these complaints,” said Ralph Sacco, MD, professor and Olemberg chair of neurology at University of Miami, and past president of the American Academy of Neurology.
Neurologic detritus
Further complicating the epidemiologic picture is the broad array of clinical and functional symptoms. “What we call long-haul COVID is not a single entity,” explained Michel Toledano, MD, a neurology consultant and a member of the CARP team at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients present with persistent or emergent polysymptomatic and multisystemic diseases that often include neurologic symptoms, he said. In many circumstances, they had an acute infection with either very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.
“There’s no doubt that these people are experiencing significant neurologic symptoms, but it remains unclear whether the driving factor is mainly systemic or the nervous system independently of what is happening in the body,” he said.
Like patients with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), patients recovering from confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections experience a variety of self-reported neurologic symptoms that vary in terms of time frame, duration, and severity.
Take Jacqueline Jolly, for example, a 50-year-old single mother and construction permit contractor living outside of Tampa, Florida. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 in January 2021. Jolly explained that she was never sick enough to be admitted to the hospital and yet is still not close to full recovery. Lingering, debilitating symptoms include executive function challenges, anosmia, headaches, and paresthesia that frequently bring her to the edge of losing consciousness. She has not returned to work, despite multiple attempts.
Vicky Nunally, a 35-year-old single mother and medical office assistant who lives in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia, recounted that she landed in the intensive care unit with a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Roughly 6 months later, she continues to experience debilitating headaches, brain fog, and cognitive delays. Her endometriosis has flared up. She says that she is depressed, anxious, and has returned to therapy. “It makes you feel crazy,” she said.
Debilitating, pervasive symptoms
Findings from an international survey of 3,762 respondents that was published on April 21 in medRXiv underscore that PASC occurs predominantly in middle-aged women (78.9% were women; 31% were aged 40-49 years; 25.0% were aged 50-59 years). For the most part, it manifests similarly among people with prior confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections. In the study, symptoms were reported in both cohorts well past the initial infection; symptoms persisted past 90 days in 96% of patients and for at least 6 months in 65.2%.
Similarly, a recent study showed that 68% of patients who were enrolled in Mayo Clinic’s CARP as of June 2020 were women, middle aged (mean age, 45 ± 14.2 years), and presented roughly 3 months (94.4 ± 65 days) post diagnosis. Of these patients, 75% had not been previously hospitalized.
In both studies, fatigue and cognitive dysfunction were consistently cited as the most debilitating and pervasive manifestations lasting more than 6 months. Others included postexertional (physical or mental) malaise, sensorimotor symptoms, headaches, and memory problems.
Reports of even more severe neurologic first-time diagnoses are emerging. Findings from the Lancet Psychiatry study showed there was a small but clinically relevant risk for a range of conditions that included intracranial hemorrhage (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20), ischemic stroke (0.43%; 95% CI, 0.36-0.52), parkinsonism (0.07%; 95% CI, 0.05-0.12), and nerve root/plexus disorders (2.69%; 95% CI, 2.51-2.89).
Dr. Toledano noted that he’s also seen patients who developed autonomic/small-fiber dysfunction. Preliminary data from a retrospective chart review suggest that the most likely diagnosis is orthostatic intolerance without tachycardia or hypotension.
In the study, 63% (17) of the 27 participants who met the inclusion criteria had abnormal results on function testing, but Composite Autonomic Severity Score results indicated mostly mild disease (sudomotor range, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovagal, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovascular adrenergic, 0-4 [median, 0]).
“The pattern that’s emerging is consistent with deconditioning,” Dr. Toledano said. “However, a small proportion of patients do have evidence of damage to the nervous system, which is something we’ve seen with other viruses.”
Proliferation of long-COVID clinics
A few of these patients with orthostatic intolerance developed postural tachycardia syndrome or experienced exacerbations of preexisting sensory or autonomic small-fiber neuropathies. “These post-viral, autonomic neuropathies tend to be self-limiting, but we’re starting to see different levels of involvement,” Dr. Toledano explained. At present, causality and/or underlying mechanisms are unclear.
Speaking on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Sacco acknowledged the challenges that lie ahead. “Like any neurological symptom that continues to affect a patient’s quality of life, you may need to seek the expertise of a neurologist. The only issue is that some may still not be sure exactly what to do; we don’t have all the data yet,” he said.
On the flip side, he pointed to the lessons of the past year and how quickly health care systems were able to pivot to deal with the pandemic and critically ill patients, then pivot again to disseminate vaccines, and how they are pivoting yet again to address PASC.
Across the nation, numerous hospitals and health care systems and even small private clinics have launched clinics that focus on long-COVID, including Mayo.
The program has a multidisciplinary, collaborative framework and offers both face-to-face and video telemedicine consultations. The latter are geared toward ensuring that under-resourced populations can access needed care and assistance.
“At Mayo, we have a centralized triage system to help target patients’ visits so that appropriate subspecialties and studies can be preordered,” explained Dr. Toledano. During these visits, patients are assessed for underlying conditions and possible signs of decompensation, as well as functional and physical needs and psychosocial challenges. Thereafter, patients enter either CARP, which offers active rehabilitation for up to 3 months after resolution of the acute infection, or the Post-COVID Care Center, which focuses on patients whose condition is not improving or who are demonstrating signs of central sensitization.
An uphill battle
Both programs incorporate individually paced occupational and physical therapy aimed at ameliorating symptoms, restoring function, developing psychosocial coping skills, and, ultimately, facilitating a return to work. “The idea is, if we can meet with these patients sooner than later and help them recover in an appropriate fashion, they will exit the program faster,” Dr. Vanichkachorn said. “We do see a group of patients who tend to get better right around the 4-month period.”
Although telemedicine provides an opportunity for clinicians outside these hospital systems to engage patients, Dr. Vanichkachorn pointed out that almost all the initial treatments can be offered in the local community by a provider who has adequate time and knowledge of the condition.
He also acknowledged the potential for an uphill battle, especially among those who cling to the belief that PASC is simply a manifestation of anxiety or depression. “This is something that we’ve seen previously with SARS and MERS, as well as in conjunction with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue, only now with greater magnitude,” he said. “This is a real condition that has important and huge ramifications on a person’s ability to function.”
The silver lining is that last December, the NIH announced that it was allocating $1.1 billion for research through its NIH PASC Initiative. Like other institutions, Mayo is waiting to hear what it has been awarded. In the meantime, it has developed a biorepository of patient samples to better understand pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying PASC and to identify possible biomarkers that differentiate these patients.
Despite the challenges, Dr. Vanichkachorn is hopeful. “If we can get a concrete understanding of what is occurring on the chemical level and develop diagnostic tests, then the education will follow. Providers won’t be able to ignore it any longer,” he said.
The interviewees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.