User login
Sustained long-term benefit of gene therapy for SMA
, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.
The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
Single infusion
SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.
In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.
Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.
In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.
The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.
Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.
All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.
These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen).
Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).
Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.
The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said.
The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.
The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
Single infusion
SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.
In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.
Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.
In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.
The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.
Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.
All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.
These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen).
Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).
Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.
The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said.
The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.
The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
Single infusion
SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.
In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.
Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.
In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.
The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.
Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.
All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.
These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen).
Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).
Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.
The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said.
The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Large vessel stroke linked to AstraZeneca COVID vaccine
The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.
They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.
“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.
“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.
Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.
Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.
“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.
Three cases
The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.
Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.
The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.
Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.
The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
High index of suspicion required
In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.
“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
Risk/benefit unaltered
Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.
Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”
“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.
“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.
“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”
Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”
Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.
They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.
“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.
“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.
Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.
Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.
“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.
Three cases
The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.
Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.
The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.
Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.
The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
High index of suspicion required
In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.
“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
Risk/benefit unaltered
Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.
Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”
“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.
“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.
“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”
Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”
Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.
They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.
“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.
“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.
Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.
Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.
“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.
Three cases
The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.
Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.
The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.
Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.
The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
High index of suspicion required
In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.
“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
Risk/benefit unaltered
Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.
Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”
“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.
“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.
“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”
Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”
Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Risk factors identified for late seizure relapse after epilepsy surgery
according to a new study on the factors most associated with seizure recurrence in drug-resistant epilepsy.
“As our study analyzed late seizure relapse, our results are not applicable for short‐term seizure control. Vice versa, results for short‐term outcomes should not be transferred to long‐term outcomes,” Stephan Petrik of the Epilepsy Center at the University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues wrote. The study was published in the May 2021 issue of Epilepsia.
To assess the variables that increase risk of late seizure recurrence following surgery, the researchers retrospectively studied the medical records of patients who underwent resective epilepsy surgery at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany) between 1999 and 2015. Of the 1,278 initial patients, a group of 99 participants (7.7%) with seizure relapses after at least 2 years of complete seizure freedom were matched with controls experiencing long-term seizure freedom. The two groups had similar mean durations of epilepsy from onset to surgery: 13.9 years in the relapse group and 13.0 years in the control group.
The mean follow-up was 9.7 years (standard deviation, 4.0; range, 2.9-18.5) in the relapse group and 8.2 years (SD, 3.5; range, 2.2-18.3) in the control group. The mean time to late seizure recurrence was 56.6 months, and two-thirds of patients relapsed in the 5 years after surgery. Twenty of the relapse patients only experienced a single seizure, and 41% of the patients who reported more than one seizure had a frequency of less than one per month.
The type of resection had no discernible impact on outcomes, although anterior temporal lobe resection did trend toward being associated with recurrence (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-8.89; P = .06). Incomplete resection was significantly associated with late relapse but did not seem to affect timing: the mean duration of seizure freedom was 56.5 months with complete resection and 58.5 months with incomplete resection (P = .62). Additional preoperative PET scans were performed on 45% of patients in the relapse group, compared with 29% in the control group.
After multivariate analysis, predictors for late relapse included incomplete resection (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.79-8.53; P < .001); the existence of additional, potentially epileptogenic lesions in the contralateral hemisphere on presurgical MRI (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.18-10.62; P = .03); epilepsy onset during the first year of life (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.4-15.89; P = .02); and preoperative PET scans being performed (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.25-4.97; P = .01). Though use of preoperative and postoperative antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was higher in the relapse group, along with complete withdrawal being more common in the control group (68%, compared with 51%), neither was deemed significant in multivariate analysis.
What to do about seizure relapse risk factors
“This is one of the best analyses of the factors that contribute to late seizure relapse,” Gregory K. Bergey, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Epilepsy Center in Baltimore, said in an interview. “Am I surprised by their results? Not necessarily.”
What did jump out, he said, was AED use not being a predictor of recurrence, as well as all the patients with late relapse having lesional epilepsy. “As they point out, you can have relapse with nonlesional epilepsy, but very often it happens in the first year or 2. If someone is 2 years out and doesn’t have a lesion, they’re probably more likely to remain seizure free.”
Despite the researchers’ comprehensive review of risk factors, the question remains: What to do with this information?
“They’ve done a very good job of identifying that 7.7% of 1,200 who are at risk of a late relapse,” he said. “Now, take those patients with high-risk factors and launch a trial where you keep medicines the same or do something that would alter that outcome.”
“The problem is,” he added, “that’s a 10-year study. It’s easy for me to sit here and call for one of those. But still, as valuable as this was, it’s a retrospective study. Now you have to say, what are the implications of this? What can we do in the prospective fashion?”
The authors acknowledged their study’s other limitations, including a lack of information on the reasons for an incomplete resection, a notable decrease in follow-up visits more than 5 years after surgery, and potential selection bias. They added, however, that “matching by age at surgery, gender, and time to relapse/last follow‐up” should have helped reduce any significant bias.
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
according to a new study on the factors most associated with seizure recurrence in drug-resistant epilepsy.
“As our study analyzed late seizure relapse, our results are not applicable for short‐term seizure control. Vice versa, results for short‐term outcomes should not be transferred to long‐term outcomes,” Stephan Petrik of the Epilepsy Center at the University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues wrote. The study was published in the May 2021 issue of Epilepsia.
To assess the variables that increase risk of late seizure recurrence following surgery, the researchers retrospectively studied the medical records of patients who underwent resective epilepsy surgery at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany) between 1999 and 2015. Of the 1,278 initial patients, a group of 99 participants (7.7%) with seizure relapses after at least 2 years of complete seizure freedom were matched with controls experiencing long-term seizure freedom. The two groups had similar mean durations of epilepsy from onset to surgery: 13.9 years in the relapse group and 13.0 years in the control group.
The mean follow-up was 9.7 years (standard deviation, 4.0; range, 2.9-18.5) in the relapse group and 8.2 years (SD, 3.5; range, 2.2-18.3) in the control group. The mean time to late seizure recurrence was 56.6 months, and two-thirds of patients relapsed in the 5 years after surgery. Twenty of the relapse patients only experienced a single seizure, and 41% of the patients who reported more than one seizure had a frequency of less than one per month.
The type of resection had no discernible impact on outcomes, although anterior temporal lobe resection did trend toward being associated with recurrence (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-8.89; P = .06). Incomplete resection was significantly associated with late relapse but did not seem to affect timing: the mean duration of seizure freedom was 56.5 months with complete resection and 58.5 months with incomplete resection (P = .62). Additional preoperative PET scans were performed on 45% of patients in the relapse group, compared with 29% in the control group.
After multivariate analysis, predictors for late relapse included incomplete resection (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.79-8.53; P < .001); the existence of additional, potentially epileptogenic lesions in the contralateral hemisphere on presurgical MRI (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.18-10.62; P = .03); epilepsy onset during the first year of life (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.4-15.89; P = .02); and preoperative PET scans being performed (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.25-4.97; P = .01). Though use of preoperative and postoperative antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was higher in the relapse group, along with complete withdrawal being more common in the control group (68%, compared with 51%), neither was deemed significant in multivariate analysis.
What to do about seizure relapse risk factors
“This is one of the best analyses of the factors that contribute to late seizure relapse,” Gregory K. Bergey, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Epilepsy Center in Baltimore, said in an interview. “Am I surprised by their results? Not necessarily.”
What did jump out, he said, was AED use not being a predictor of recurrence, as well as all the patients with late relapse having lesional epilepsy. “As they point out, you can have relapse with nonlesional epilepsy, but very often it happens in the first year or 2. If someone is 2 years out and doesn’t have a lesion, they’re probably more likely to remain seizure free.”
Despite the researchers’ comprehensive review of risk factors, the question remains: What to do with this information?
“They’ve done a very good job of identifying that 7.7% of 1,200 who are at risk of a late relapse,” he said. “Now, take those patients with high-risk factors and launch a trial where you keep medicines the same or do something that would alter that outcome.”
“The problem is,” he added, “that’s a 10-year study. It’s easy for me to sit here and call for one of those. But still, as valuable as this was, it’s a retrospective study. Now you have to say, what are the implications of this? What can we do in the prospective fashion?”
The authors acknowledged their study’s other limitations, including a lack of information on the reasons for an incomplete resection, a notable decrease in follow-up visits more than 5 years after surgery, and potential selection bias. They added, however, that “matching by age at surgery, gender, and time to relapse/last follow‐up” should have helped reduce any significant bias.
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
according to a new study on the factors most associated with seizure recurrence in drug-resistant epilepsy.
“As our study analyzed late seizure relapse, our results are not applicable for short‐term seizure control. Vice versa, results for short‐term outcomes should not be transferred to long‐term outcomes,” Stephan Petrik of the Epilepsy Center at the University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues wrote. The study was published in the May 2021 issue of Epilepsia.
To assess the variables that increase risk of late seizure recurrence following surgery, the researchers retrospectively studied the medical records of patients who underwent resective epilepsy surgery at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany) between 1999 and 2015. Of the 1,278 initial patients, a group of 99 participants (7.7%) with seizure relapses after at least 2 years of complete seizure freedom were matched with controls experiencing long-term seizure freedom. The two groups had similar mean durations of epilepsy from onset to surgery: 13.9 years in the relapse group and 13.0 years in the control group.
The mean follow-up was 9.7 years (standard deviation, 4.0; range, 2.9-18.5) in the relapse group and 8.2 years (SD, 3.5; range, 2.2-18.3) in the control group. The mean time to late seizure recurrence was 56.6 months, and two-thirds of patients relapsed in the 5 years after surgery. Twenty of the relapse patients only experienced a single seizure, and 41% of the patients who reported more than one seizure had a frequency of less than one per month.
The type of resection had no discernible impact on outcomes, although anterior temporal lobe resection did trend toward being associated with recurrence (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-8.89; P = .06). Incomplete resection was significantly associated with late relapse but did not seem to affect timing: the mean duration of seizure freedom was 56.5 months with complete resection and 58.5 months with incomplete resection (P = .62). Additional preoperative PET scans were performed on 45% of patients in the relapse group, compared with 29% in the control group.
After multivariate analysis, predictors for late relapse included incomplete resection (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.79-8.53; P < .001); the existence of additional, potentially epileptogenic lesions in the contralateral hemisphere on presurgical MRI (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.18-10.62; P = .03); epilepsy onset during the first year of life (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.4-15.89; P = .02); and preoperative PET scans being performed (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.25-4.97; P = .01). Though use of preoperative and postoperative antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was higher in the relapse group, along with complete withdrawal being more common in the control group (68%, compared with 51%), neither was deemed significant in multivariate analysis.
What to do about seizure relapse risk factors
“This is one of the best analyses of the factors that contribute to late seizure relapse,” Gregory K. Bergey, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Epilepsy Center in Baltimore, said in an interview. “Am I surprised by their results? Not necessarily.”
What did jump out, he said, was AED use not being a predictor of recurrence, as well as all the patients with late relapse having lesional epilepsy. “As they point out, you can have relapse with nonlesional epilepsy, but very often it happens in the first year or 2. If someone is 2 years out and doesn’t have a lesion, they’re probably more likely to remain seizure free.”
Despite the researchers’ comprehensive review of risk factors, the question remains: What to do with this information?
“They’ve done a very good job of identifying that 7.7% of 1,200 who are at risk of a late relapse,” he said. “Now, take those patients with high-risk factors and launch a trial where you keep medicines the same or do something that would alter that outcome.”
“The problem is,” he added, “that’s a 10-year study. It’s easy for me to sit here and call for one of those. But still, as valuable as this was, it’s a retrospective study. Now you have to say, what are the implications of this? What can we do in the prospective fashion?”
The authors acknowledged their study’s other limitations, including a lack of information on the reasons for an incomplete resection, a notable decrease in follow-up visits more than 5 years after surgery, and potential selection bias. They added, however, that “matching by age at surgery, gender, and time to relapse/last follow‐up” should have helped reduce any significant bias.
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
FROM EPILEPSIA
Race, ethnicity, and socioeconomics are often barriers to migraine care
, according to a study published in the April issue of Headache. People of African descent and Latinx ethnicity tend to fare worse than other people of color and their White counterparts.
“It should be shocking to neurologists and other clinicians who care for migraine patients how few are able to successfully traverse the barriers to achieve an accurate diagnosis and proper, evidence-based, acute and preventative treatment,” commented Peter McAllister, MD, medical director at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache and chief medical officer for clinical research at Ki Clinical Research in Stamford, Conn. Dr. McAllister was not involved in this study.
Assessing barriers to care
Researchers designed the study with the primary objective of estimating the number of patients with migraines with unmet clinical needs and who were impacted by four preidentified barriers to care. To evaluate their objective, researchers conducted a longitudinal, Internet-based survey known as the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study. They collected data over 1 year examining a cohort of patients that mimicked the diverse demographics of the U.S. population. Researchers conducted longitudinal assessments every 3 months for 15 months, incorporating cross-sectional analyses that surveyed health care use, family burden, and comorbidities or endophenotypes.
Eligible enrollees were 18 years of age or older.
Researchers identified four barriers that hindered patient outcomes, and they served as the primary outcomes of the studies. They were:
- Health care provider consultations. Investigators used study participants’ responses to the following question during their interactions with their health care providers to help evaluate the quality of their consultation experience: “What type of doctor is currently managing your headaches?” Researchers included data from patients whose practitioners fit the description of those they deemed best suited to address ongoing headache challenges. These medical professionals included general practitioners, family physicians, internal medicine doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, neurologists, pain specialists, headache specialists, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
- Diagnosis. Carefully evaluating patients’ responses to a series of questions helped researchers gauge the accuracy of diagnosis. Questions included: “Have you ever been diagnosed by a doctor or other health professional with any of the following types of headaches?” Respondents were also given a list of options that provided additional context around their headaches and were encouraged to select all appropriate responses. The list included a fictional response option of “citrene headache” to determine incorrect responses. For this study, researchers deemed it necessary to recognize a chronic migraine diagnosis to ensure that patients received appropriate treatment.
- Minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment. Researchers used the following question to determine whether patients’ chronic migraine and episodic migraine were being managed with the least amount of pharmacological treatment necessary. “Which of these medications (if any) are you currently using (or typically keep on hand) to treat your headaches when you have them?” Researchers defined “minimally appropriate acute pharmacologic treatment” as the use of any prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), triptan, ergotamine derivative, or isometheptene.
- Avoidance of medication overuse. The study authors pointed out the sometimes nebulous process of characterizing the appropriate use of preventative medication in patients with episodic migraines as “not straightforward” for some patients because not all patients require preventive treatment. Study participants were required to report having received any form of preventative therapy, defined as pharmacological therapies approved by guidelines and supported by data. Such therapies included various antiseizure medication, antidepressants (for example, doxepin, venlafaxine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, imipramine, nortriptyline, and desvenlafaxine), antihypertensives, and toxin injections. Treatments such as behavioral and neuromodulatory therapies were excluded from the list.
According to lead author Dawn C. Buse, PhD, of the department of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, acute medication overuse provides an important modifiable target for intervention and recommends that clinicians use the opportunity to optimize migraine care by reducing the patients’ reliance on acute therapies. Taking such initiatives to decrease medication overuse is especially important in communities of color, who are more likely to overuse medications for migraines.
Patients with higher income levels were more likely to overcome each barrier. People of African, African American, or multiracial descent were more prone to overuse of medications to manage their migraines.
Of the 489,537 respondents invited to participate in the CaMEO study, 16,879 qualified for inclusion. Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 9,184 [54.7%]) had a migraine-related disability (MIDAS) score of 6 or greater – an indicator of disability that is least mild in nature. Most patients who had episodic migraines or chronic migraines (86.2%) had some form of health insurance coverage (n = 9.184; 84.1%; P = .048). Of those patients who were insured, 7,930 patients experienced episodic migraine (86.3%) and the remainder had chronic migraine (n = 1,254; 13.7%). Higher-income patients were more likely to traverse barriers to care. While patients of African descent had higher consultation rates, they also had higher rates of acute medication overuse.
Patients with chronic migraine were more likely to be older than patients with episodic migraine (41.0 vs. 39.6 years; P = .0001) and female (83.0% vs. 79.0%; P = .001), and White (84.5% vs. 79.1%; P < .001). Similarly, patients with chronic migraine were more likely to have a higher mean body mass index (29.8 kg/m2 vs. 28.9 kg/m2; P < .001) and lower rates of full- or part-time employment (56.8% vs. 67.1%; P < .001), and were less likely to have a 4-year degree (64.8 vs. 55.6; P < .001) and annual household incomes below $75,000 (72.6% vs. 64.6%; P < .001). Approximately three-quarters of the patients with episodic migraine (75.7%; 1655/2187) and one-third of patients with chronic migraine (32.8%; 168/512) received accurate diagnoses.
The data uncovered an association with acute medication overuse. Among current consulters who had received an accurate diagnosis and minimally adequate treatment, medication overuse rates were highest among those reporting two or more races (53%) and Blacks and African Americans (45%) and lowest among Whites (33%) and those categorized as “other” race (32%). Ethnic and cultural differences in headache literacy may contribute to differences in medication overuse.
Strategies to improve outcomes
Both Dr. Buse and Dr. McAllister see the value advocacy and education offer in helping to improve outcomes in marginalized communities and other groups negatively impacted by various barriers.
“Patient advocacy and outreach are key here, especially in those traditionally underrepresented in the migraine space, such as men, people of color, blue-collar workers, etc.,” Dr. McAllister noted.
Dr. Buse emphasized the importance of education for patients and health care professionals alike. “A large percentage of people who meet criteria for migraine in the U.S. do not seek care or possibly even know that they have migraines,” Dr. Buse said. “This finding underscores the importance of public health education about migraine as well as well as providing migraine support, education, and resources to health care professionals on the front lines.”
Other strategies recommended by Dr, Buse to ease the impact of barriers include encouraging patient discussion, setting up time for follow-up appointments and education, referring patients for neurological and other specialty consults when warranted, reviewing essential lifestyle habits for migraine management, and creating personalized, mutually agreed-upon treatment plans.
Dr. Buse has received support and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, and Promius.
, according to a study published in the April issue of Headache. People of African descent and Latinx ethnicity tend to fare worse than other people of color and their White counterparts.
“It should be shocking to neurologists and other clinicians who care for migraine patients how few are able to successfully traverse the barriers to achieve an accurate diagnosis and proper, evidence-based, acute and preventative treatment,” commented Peter McAllister, MD, medical director at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache and chief medical officer for clinical research at Ki Clinical Research in Stamford, Conn. Dr. McAllister was not involved in this study.
Assessing barriers to care
Researchers designed the study with the primary objective of estimating the number of patients with migraines with unmet clinical needs and who were impacted by four preidentified barriers to care. To evaluate their objective, researchers conducted a longitudinal, Internet-based survey known as the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study. They collected data over 1 year examining a cohort of patients that mimicked the diverse demographics of the U.S. population. Researchers conducted longitudinal assessments every 3 months for 15 months, incorporating cross-sectional analyses that surveyed health care use, family burden, and comorbidities or endophenotypes.
Eligible enrollees were 18 years of age or older.
Researchers identified four barriers that hindered patient outcomes, and they served as the primary outcomes of the studies. They were:
- Health care provider consultations. Investigators used study participants’ responses to the following question during their interactions with their health care providers to help evaluate the quality of their consultation experience: “What type of doctor is currently managing your headaches?” Researchers included data from patients whose practitioners fit the description of those they deemed best suited to address ongoing headache challenges. These medical professionals included general practitioners, family physicians, internal medicine doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, neurologists, pain specialists, headache specialists, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
- Diagnosis. Carefully evaluating patients’ responses to a series of questions helped researchers gauge the accuracy of diagnosis. Questions included: “Have you ever been diagnosed by a doctor or other health professional with any of the following types of headaches?” Respondents were also given a list of options that provided additional context around their headaches and were encouraged to select all appropriate responses. The list included a fictional response option of “citrene headache” to determine incorrect responses. For this study, researchers deemed it necessary to recognize a chronic migraine diagnosis to ensure that patients received appropriate treatment.
- Minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment. Researchers used the following question to determine whether patients’ chronic migraine and episodic migraine were being managed with the least amount of pharmacological treatment necessary. “Which of these medications (if any) are you currently using (or typically keep on hand) to treat your headaches when you have them?” Researchers defined “minimally appropriate acute pharmacologic treatment” as the use of any prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), triptan, ergotamine derivative, or isometheptene.
- Avoidance of medication overuse. The study authors pointed out the sometimes nebulous process of characterizing the appropriate use of preventative medication in patients with episodic migraines as “not straightforward” for some patients because not all patients require preventive treatment. Study participants were required to report having received any form of preventative therapy, defined as pharmacological therapies approved by guidelines and supported by data. Such therapies included various antiseizure medication, antidepressants (for example, doxepin, venlafaxine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, imipramine, nortriptyline, and desvenlafaxine), antihypertensives, and toxin injections. Treatments such as behavioral and neuromodulatory therapies were excluded from the list.
According to lead author Dawn C. Buse, PhD, of the department of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, acute medication overuse provides an important modifiable target for intervention and recommends that clinicians use the opportunity to optimize migraine care by reducing the patients’ reliance on acute therapies. Taking such initiatives to decrease medication overuse is especially important in communities of color, who are more likely to overuse medications for migraines.
Patients with higher income levels were more likely to overcome each barrier. People of African, African American, or multiracial descent were more prone to overuse of medications to manage their migraines.
Of the 489,537 respondents invited to participate in the CaMEO study, 16,879 qualified for inclusion. Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 9,184 [54.7%]) had a migraine-related disability (MIDAS) score of 6 or greater – an indicator of disability that is least mild in nature. Most patients who had episodic migraines or chronic migraines (86.2%) had some form of health insurance coverage (n = 9.184; 84.1%; P = .048). Of those patients who were insured, 7,930 patients experienced episodic migraine (86.3%) and the remainder had chronic migraine (n = 1,254; 13.7%). Higher-income patients were more likely to traverse barriers to care. While patients of African descent had higher consultation rates, they also had higher rates of acute medication overuse.
Patients with chronic migraine were more likely to be older than patients with episodic migraine (41.0 vs. 39.6 years; P = .0001) and female (83.0% vs. 79.0%; P = .001), and White (84.5% vs. 79.1%; P < .001). Similarly, patients with chronic migraine were more likely to have a higher mean body mass index (29.8 kg/m2 vs. 28.9 kg/m2; P < .001) and lower rates of full- or part-time employment (56.8% vs. 67.1%; P < .001), and were less likely to have a 4-year degree (64.8 vs. 55.6; P < .001) and annual household incomes below $75,000 (72.6% vs. 64.6%; P < .001). Approximately three-quarters of the patients with episodic migraine (75.7%; 1655/2187) and one-third of patients with chronic migraine (32.8%; 168/512) received accurate diagnoses.
The data uncovered an association with acute medication overuse. Among current consulters who had received an accurate diagnosis and minimally adequate treatment, medication overuse rates were highest among those reporting two or more races (53%) and Blacks and African Americans (45%) and lowest among Whites (33%) and those categorized as “other” race (32%). Ethnic and cultural differences in headache literacy may contribute to differences in medication overuse.
Strategies to improve outcomes
Both Dr. Buse and Dr. McAllister see the value advocacy and education offer in helping to improve outcomes in marginalized communities and other groups negatively impacted by various barriers.
“Patient advocacy and outreach are key here, especially in those traditionally underrepresented in the migraine space, such as men, people of color, blue-collar workers, etc.,” Dr. McAllister noted.
Dr. Buse emphasized the importance of education for patients and health care professionals alike. “A large percentage of people who meet criteria for migraine in the U.S. do not seek care or possibly even know that they have migraines,” Dr. Buse said. “This finding underscores the importance of public health education about migraine as well as well as providing migraine support, education, and resources to health care professionals on the front lines.”
Other strategies recommended by Dr, Buse to ease the impact of barriers include encouraging patient discussion, setting up time for follow-up appointments and education, referring patients for neurological and other specialty consults when warranted, reviewing essential lifestyle habits for migraine management, and creating personalized, mutually agreed-upon treatment plans.
Dr. Buse has received support and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, and Promius.
, according to a study published in the April issue of Headache. People of African descent and Latinx ethnicity tend to fare worse than other people of color and their White counterparts.
“It should be shocking to neurologists and other clinicians who care for migraine patients how few are able to successfully traverse the barriers to achieve an accurate diagnosis and proper, evidence-based, acute and preventative treatment,” commented Peter McAllister, MD, medical director at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache and chief medical officer for clinical research at Ki Clinical Research in Stamford, Conn. Dr. McAllister was not involved in this study.
Assessing barriers to care
Researchers designed the study with the primary objective of estimating the number of patients with migraines with unmet clinical needs and who were impacted by four preidentified barriers to care. To evaluate their objective, researchers conducted a longitudinal, Internet-based survey known as the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study. They collected data over 1 year examining a cohort of patients that mimicked the diverse demographics of the U.S. population. Researchers conducted longitudinal assessments every 3 months for 15 months, incorporating cross-sectional analyses that surveyed health care use, family burden, and comorbidities or endophenotypes.
Eligible enrollees were 18 years of age or older.
Researchers identified four barriers that hindered patient outcomes, and they served as the primary outcomes of the studies. They were:
- Health care provider consultations. Investigators used study participants’ responses to the following question during their interactions with their health care providers to help evaluate the quality of their consultation experience: “What type of doctor is currently managing your headaches?” Researchers included data from patients whose practitioners fit the description of those they deemed best suited to address ongoing headache challenges. These medical professionals included general practitioners, family physicians, internal medicine doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, neurologists, pain specialists, headache specialists, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
- Diagnosis. Carefully evaluating patients’ responses to a series of questions helped researchers gauge the accuracy of diagnosis. Questions included: “Have you ever been diagnosed by a doctor or other health professional with any of the following types of headaches?” Respondents were also given a list of options that provided additional context around their headaches and were encouraged to select all appropriate responses. The list included a fictional response option of “citrene headache” to determine incorrect responses. For this study, researchers deemed it necessary to recognize a chronic migraine diagnosis to ensure that patients received appropriate treatment.
- Minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment. Researchers used the following question to determine whether patients’ chronic migraine and episodic migraine were being managed with the least amount of pharmacological treatment necessary. “Which of these medications (if any) are you currently using (or typically keep on hand) to treat your headaches when you have them?” Researchers defined “minimally appropriate acute pharmacologic treatment” as the use of any prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), triptan, ergotamine derivative, or isometheptene.
- Avoidance of medication overuse. The study authors pointed out the sometimes nebulous process of characterizing the appropriate use of preventative medication in patients with episodic migraines as “not straightforward” for some patients because not all patients require preventive treatment. Study participants were required to report having received any form of preventative therapy, defined as pharmacological therapies approved by guidelines and supported by data. Such therapies included various antiseizure medication, antidepressants (for example, doxepin, venlafaxine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, imipramine, nortriptyline, and desvenlafaxine), antihypertensives, and toxin injections. Treatments such as behavioral and neuromodulatory therapies were excluded from the list.
According to lead author Dawn C. Buse, PhD, of the department of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, acute medication overuse provides an important modifiable target for intervention and recommends that clinicians use the opportunity to optimize migraine care by reducing the patients’ reliance on acute therapies. Taking such initiatives to decrease medication overuse is especially important in communities of color, who are more likely to overuse medications for migraines.
Patients with higher income levels were more likely to overcome each barrier. People of African, African American, or multiracial descent were more prone to overuse of medications to manage their migraines.
Of the 489,537 respondents invited to participate in the CaMEO study, 16,879 qualified for inclusion. Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 9,184 [54.7%]) had a migraine-related disability (MIDAS) score of 6 or greater – an indicator of disability that is least mild in nature. Most patients who had episodic migraines or chronic migraines (86.2%) had some form of health insurance coverage (n = 9.184; 84.1%; P = .048). Of those patients who were insured, 7,930 patients experienced episodic migraine (86.3%) and the remainder had chronic migraine (n = 1,254; 13.7%). Higher-income patients were more likely to traverse barriers to care. While patients of African descent had higher consultation rates, they also had higher rates of acute medication overuse.
Patients with chronic migraine were more likely to be older than patients with episodic migraine (41.0 vs. 39.6 years; P = .0001) and female (83.0% vs. 79.0%; P = .001), and White (84.5% vs. 79.1%; P < .001). Similarly, patients with chronic migraine were more likely to have a higher mean body mass index (29.8 kg/m2 vs. 28.9 kg/m2; P < .001) and lower rates of full- or part-time employment (56.8% vs. 67.1%; P < .001), and were less likely to have a 4-year degree (64.8 vs. 55.6; P < .001) and annual household incomes below $75,000 (72.6% vs. 64.6%; P < .001). Approximately three-quarters of the patients with episodic migraine (75.7%; 1655/2187) and one-third of patients with chronic migraine (32.8%; 168/512) received accurate diagnoses.
The data uncovered an association with acute medication overuse. Among current consulters who had received an accurate diagnosis and minimally adequate treatment, medication overuse rates were highest among those reporting two or more races (53%) and Blacks and African Americans (45%) and lowest among Whites (33%) and those categorized as “other” race (32%). Ethnic and cultural differences in headache literacy may contribute to differences in medication overuse.
Strategies to improve outcomes
Both Dr. Buse and Dr. McAllister see the value advocacy and education offer in helping to improve outcomes in marginalized communities and other groups negatively impacted by various barriers.
“Patient advocacy and outreach are key here, especially in those traditionally underrepresented in the migraine space, such as men, people of color, blue-collar workers, etc.,” Dr. McAllister noted.
Dr. Buse emphasized the importance of education for patients and health care professionals alike. “A large percentage of people who meet criteria for migraine in the U.S. do not seek care or possibly even know that they have migraines,” Dr. Buse said. “This finding underscores the importance of public health education about migraine as well as well as providing migraine support, education, and resources to health care professionals on the front lines.”
Other strategies recommended by Dr, Buse to ease the impact of barriers include encouraging patient discussion, setting up time for follow-up appointments and education, referring patients for neurological and other specialty consults when warranted, reviewing essential lifestyle habits for migraine management, and creating personalized, mutually agreed-upon treatment plans.
Dr. Buse has received support and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, and Promius.
FROM HEADACHE
Transcranial brain stimulation can modulate placebo and nocebo experiences
, according to results of a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
“Placebo and nocebo effects are a critical component of clinical care and efficacy studies,” said senior author Jian Kong, MD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown campus. “Harnessing these effects in clinical practice and research could facilitate the development of new pain management methods,” he said. “Healing may involve multiple components: the self-healing properties of the body; the nonspecific effects of treatment (i.e., placebo effect); and the specific effect of a physical or pharmacologic intervention. Therefore, enhancing the placebo effect may ultimately boost the overall therapeutic effect of existing treatment,” he explained, emphasizing that the results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.
The authors noted that reducing nocebo effects could also be a major benefit “since patients discontinue prescribed medications, make unnecessary medical visits, and take additional medications to counteract adverse effects that are actually nocebo effects.”
Testing the hypothesis
The randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which delivers an electrical current to the brain via scalp electrodes. The aim was to see if stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with tDCS could alter the brain’s perception of placebo and nocebo experiences.
The study included 81 participants (37 females, mean age: 27.4 years), who were randomized into one of three tDCS groups (anodal, cathodal, or sham).
All participants were first conditioned to believe that an inert cream was either lidocaine or capsaicin and that this cream could either dull the impact of a painful heat stimulus (placebo analgesia) or exacerbate it (nocebo hyperalgesia). Participants were then placed into a functional MRI scanner where tDCS was initiated. Painful stimuli were then applied to spots on their forearms where they believed they had either lidocaine, capsaicin, or a neutral control cream and they rated the pain using the Gracely Sensory Scale.
Placebo analgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where participants believed they had lidocaine cream compared with where they believed they had control cream. Nocebo hyperalgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where they believed they had capsaicin cream compared with where they believed they had control cream.
The researchers found that compared with sham tDCS, cathodal tDCS showed significant effects in increasing placebo analgesia and brain responses in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), while anodal tDCS showed significant effects in inhibiting nocebo hyperalgesia and brain responses in the insula.
“The potential to enhance salubrious placebo effects and/or diminish treatment-interfering nocebo effects may have clinical significance,” the authors noted. “For example, clinical studies have suggested that expectancy is positively associated with chronic pain improvement, and using conditioning-like expectancy manipulation, we have shown that significantly boosting expectancy can improve treatment outcome.”
Proof of concept
Asked to comment on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, said “the findings are a proof of concept that it is possible to use noninvasive brain stimulation to modulate placebo and nocebo pain effects.”
Although the findings do not have immediate clinical application, they are “exciting” and “break new ground in expectancy research,” he said.
“It is important to recognize that the researchers are trying to utilize a purported expectancy mechanism rather than attempting to alter placebo/nocebo by verbal and other cues. It remains to be seen whether the manipulation of brief experimental pain like this can translate into altered chronic pain over time, the main clinical goal. Current tDCS therapy for various reasons is necessarily brief and one can ask whether there are meaningful changes from brief stimulation. Such results can foster speculation as to whether direct strategic placement of intracranial stimulation leads could result in more longstanding similar benefits.”
Dr. Kong holds equity in a startup company (MNT) and a pending patent to develop new peripheral neuromodulation tools, but declares no conflict of interest. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.
, according to results of a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
“Placebo and nocebo effects are a critical component of clinical care and efficacy studies,” said senior author Jian Kong, MD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown campus. “Harnessing these effects in clinical practice and research could facilitate the development of new pain management methods,” he said. “Healing may involve multiple components: the self-healing properties of the body; the nonspecific effects of treatment (i.e., placebo effect); and the specific effect of a physical or pharmacologic intervention. Therefore, enhancing the placebo effect may ultimately boost the overall therapeutic effect of existing treatment,” he explained, emphasizing that the results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.
The authors noted that reducing nocebo effects could also be a major benefit “since patients discontinue prescribed medications, make unnecessary medical visits, and take additional medications to counteract adverse effects that are actually nocebo effects.”
Testing the hypothesis
The randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which delivers an electrical current to the brain via scalp electrodes. The aim was to see if stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with tDCS could alter the brain’s perception of placebo and nocebo experiences.
The study included 81 participants (37 females, mean age: 27.4 years), who were randomized into one of three tDCS groups (anodal, cathodal, or sham).
All participants were first conditioned to believe that an inert cream was either lidocaine or capsaicin and that this cream could either dull the impact of a painful heat stimulus (placebo analgesia) or exacerbate it (nocebo hyperalgesia). Participants were then placed into a functional MRI scanner where tDCS was initiated. Painful stimuli were then applied to spots on their forearms where they believed they had either lidocaine, capsaicin, or a neutral control cream and they rated the pain using the Gracely Sensory Scale.
Placebo analgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where participants believed they had lidocaine cream compared with where they believed they had control cream. Nocebo hyperalgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where they believed they had capsaicin cream compared with where they believed they had control cream.
The researchers found that compared with sham tDCS, cathodal tDCS showed significant effects in increasing placebo analgesia and brain responses in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), while anodal tDCS showed significant effects in inhibiting nocebo hyperalgesia and brain responses in the insula.
“The potential to enhance salubrious placebo effects and/or diminish treatment-interfering nocebo effects may have clinical significance,” the authors noted. “For example, clinical studies have suggested that expectancy is positively associated with chronic pain improvement, and using conditioning-like expectancy manipulation, we have shown that significantly boosting expectancy can improve treatment outcome.”
Proof of concept
Asked to comment on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, said “the findings are a proof of concept that it is possible to use noninvasive brain stimulation to modulate placebo and nocebo pain effects.”
Although the findings do not have immediate clinical application, they are “exciting” and “break new ground in expectancy research,” he said.
“It is important to recognize that the researchers are trying to utilize a purported expectancy mechanism rather than attempting to alter placebo/nocebo by verbal and other cues. It remains to be seen whether the manipulation of brief experimental pain like this can translate into altered chronic pain over time, the main clinical goal. Current tDCS therapy for various reasons is necessarily brief and one can ask whether there are meaningful changes from brief stimulation. Such results can foster speculation as to whether direct strategic placement of intracranial stimulation leads could result in more longstanding similar benefits.”
Dr. Kong holds equity in a startup company (MNT) and a pending patent to develop new peripheral neuromodulation tools, but declares no conflict of interest. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.
, according to results of a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
“Placebo and nocebo effects are a critical component of clinical care and efficacy studies,” said senior author Jian Kong, MD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown campus. “Harnessing these effects in clinical practice and research could facilitate the development of new pain management methods,” he said. “Healing may involve multiple components: the self-healing properties of the body; the nonspecific effects of treatment (i.e., placebo effect); and the specific effect of a physical or pharmacologic intervention. Therefore, enhancing the placebo effect may ultimately boost the overall therapeutic effect of existing treatment,” he explained, emphasizing that the results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.
The authors noted that reducing nocebo effects could also be a major benefit “since patients discontinue prescribed medications, make unnecessary medical visits, and take additional medications to counteract adverse effects that are actually nocebo effects.”
Testing the hypothesis
The randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which delivers an electrical current to the brain via scalp electrodes. The aim was to see if stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with tDCS could alter the brain’s perception of placebo and nocebo experiences.
The study included 81 participants (37 females, mean age: 27.4 years), who were randomized into one of three tDCS groups (anodal, cathodal, or sham).
All participants were first conditioned to believe that an inert cream was either lidocaine or capsaicin and that this cream could either dull the impact of a painful heat stimulus (placebo analgesia) or exacerbate it (nocebo hyperalgesia). Participants were then placed into a functional MRI scanner where tDCS was initiated. Painful stimuli were then applied to spots on their forearms where they believed they had either lidocaine, capsaicin, or a neutral control cream and they rated the pain using the Gracely Sensory Scale.
Placebo analgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where participants believed they had lidocaine cream compared with where they believed they had control cream. Nocebo hyperalgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where they believed they had capsaicin cream compared with where they believed they had control cream.
The researchers found that compared with sham tDCS, cathodal tDCS showed significant effects in increasing placebo analgesia and brain responses in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), while anodal tDCS showed significant effects in inhibiting nocebo hyperalgesia and brain responses in the insula.
“The potential to enhance salubrious placebo effects and/or diminish treatment-interfering nocebo effects may have clinical significance,” the authors noted. “For example, clinical studies have suggested that expectancy is positively associated with chronic pain improvement, and using conditioning-like expectancy manipulation, we have shown that significantly boosting expectancy can improve treatment outcome.”
Proof of concept
Asked to comment on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, said “the findings are a proof of concept that it is possible to use noninvasive brain stimulation to modulate placebo and nocebo pain effects.”
Although the findings do not have immediate clinical application, they are “exciting” and “break new ground in expectancy research,” he said.
“It is important to recognize that the researchers are trying to utilize a purported expectancy mechanism rather than attempting to alter placebo/nocebo by verbal and other cues. It remains to be seen whether the manipulation of brief experimental pain like this can translate into altered chronic pain over time, the main clinical goal. Current tDCS therapy for various reasons is necessarily brief and one can ask whether there are meaningful changes from brief stimulation. Such results can foster speculation as to whether direct strategic placement of intracranial stimulation leads could result in more longstanding similar benefits.”
Dr. Kong holds equity in a startup company (MNT) and a pending patent to develop new peripheral neuromodulation tools, but declares no conflict of interest. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.
FROM PNAS
Basal ganglia microcircuits offer clues to Parkinson’s symptoms
, according to a new study using a mouse model of disease.
Parkinson’s disease is characterized by a range of cognitive and motor symptoms, which appear at different disease stages. While recent research has pointed to specific neuronal subpopulations, or microcircuits, operating in the basal ganglia, researchers lacked a clear understanding of how they might correspond with specific symptom domains.
In a study published online March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, lead author Varoth Lilascharoen, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported that two different neuronal subpopulations within the external globus pallidus, an important nucleus within the basal ganglia, are associated, respectively, with movement and with reversal learning (having to adapt to a reward pattern that is the reverse of a previous pattern). This is the first time, the investigators said, that the contributions of specific microcircuits in the basal ganglia have been linked to different behaviors.
Using electrophysiology, viral tracing, and other approaches, Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues demonstrated that two microcircuits or populations of parvalbumin-expressing neurons could be manipulated to exacerbate or alleviate the motor or cognitive deficits in the dopamine-depleted mice.
One of these microcircuits, made up of substantia nigra pars reticulata-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated in ways that promoted or inhibited the mice’s movement. The other, which comprises parafascicular thalamus-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated to affect reversal learning, the researchers found. Activation or inhibition of either circuit was not seen affecting function in the other.
The results shed light on the functional organization of the different basal ganglia nuclei at the circuit level, and suggest, the authors argued, that differences in how different neuronal subpopulations adapt to dopamine loss could explain some of the patterns of progression seen in Parkinson’s disease.
The findings “establish the differential contributions from two distinct GPe-PV microcircuits in specific Parkinsonian-like behaviors linked to early and late stages of the disease,” Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “[F]urther elucidation of the detailed connectivity of GPe subpopulations to their downstream targets … is needed to fully define the function of each microcircuit and design better therapeutic strategies for the various behavioral impairments of Parkinson’s disease.”
Commenting on the research, Stefan Lang, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta said, “While Parkinson’s disease is often referred to as a movement disorder, it is well known that nonmotor symptoms, including cognitive and behavioral impairment, are common and debilitating. Impairment of basal ganglia function is known to contribute to these different symptom domains, though the specific circuits have never been elucidated. [Dr.] Lilascharoen et al. tease apart specific basal ganglia circuits associated with motor and behavioral symptoms, thereby providing evidence that distinct microcircuits might contribute to unique behaviours. As technological advances in neuromodulatory therapies continue to improve the spatial and temporal resolution of stimulation, future treatments may allow for specific targeting of behavioral impairment symptoms in Parkinson’s disease.”
Dr. Lilascharoen and Dr. Lang did not report outside funding or conflicts of interest.
, according to a new study using a mouse model of disease.
Parkinson’s disease is characterized by a range of cognitive and motor symptoms, which appear at different disease stages. While recent research has pointed to specific neuronal subpopulations, or microcircuits, operating in the basal ganglia, researchers lacked a clear understanding of how they might correspond with specific symptom domains.
In a study published online March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, lead author Varoth Lilascharoen, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported that two different neuronal subpopulations within the external globus pallidus, an important nucleus within the basal ganglia, are associated, respectively, with movement and with reversal learning (having to adapt to a reward pattern that is the reverse of a previous pattern). This is the first time, the investigators said, that the contributions of specific microcircuits in the basal ganglia have been linked to different behaviors.
Using electrophysiology, viral tracing, and other approaches, Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues demonstrated that two microcircuits or populations of parvalbumin-expressing neurons could be manipulated to exacerbate or alleviate the motor or cognitive deficits in the dopamine-depleted mice.
One of these microcircuits, made up of substantia nigra pars reticulata-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated in ways that promoted or inhibited the mice’s movement. The other, which comprises parafascicular thalamus-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated to affect reversal learning, the researchers found. Activation or inhibition of either circuit was not seen affecting function in the other.
The results shed light on the functional organization of the different basal ganglia nuclei at the circuit level, and suggest, the authors argued, that differences in how different neuronal subpopulations adapt to dopamine loss could explain some of the patterns of progression seen in Parkinson’s disease.
The findings “establish the differential contributions from two distinct GPe-PV microcircuits in specific Parkinsonian-like behaviors linked to early and late stages of the disease,” Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “[F]urther elucidation of the detailed connectivity of GPe subpopulations to their downstream targets … is needed to fully define the function of each microcircuit and design better therapeutic strategies for the various behavioral impairments of Parkinson’s disease.”
Commenting on the research, Stefan Lang, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta said, “While Parkinson’s disease is often referred to as a movement disorder, it is well known that nonmotor symptoms, including cognitive and behavioral impairment, are common and debilitating. Impairment of basal ganglia function is known to contribute to these different symptom domains, though the specific circuits have never been elucidated. [Dr.] Lilascharoen et al. tease apart specific basal ganglia circuits associated with motor and behavioral symptoms, thereby providing evidence that distinct microcircuits might contribute to unique behaviours. As technological advances in neuromodulatory therapies continue to improve the spatial and temporal resolution of stimulation, future treatments may allow for specific targeting of behavioral impairment symptoms in Parkinson’s disease.”
Dr. Lilascharoen and Dr. Lang did not report outside funding or conflicts of interest.
, according to a new study using a mouse model of disease.
Parkinson’s disease is characterized by a range of cognitive and motor symptoms, which appear at different disease stages. While recent research has pointed to specific neuronal subpopulations, or microcircuits, operating in the basal ganglia, researchers lacked a clear understanding of how they might correspond with specific symptom domains.
In a study published online March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, lead author Varoth Lilascharoen, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported that two different neuronal subpopulations within the external globus pallidus, an important nucleus within the basal ganglia, are associated, respectively, with movement and with reversal learning (having to adapt to a reward pattern that is the reverse of a previous pattern). This is the first time, the investigators said, that the contributions of specific microcircuits in the basal ganglia have been linked to different behaviors.
Using electrophysiology, viral tracing, and other approaches, Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues demonstrated that two microcircuits or populations of parvalbumin-expressing neurons could be manipulated to exacerbate or alleviate the motor or cognitive deficits in the dopamine-depleted mice.
One of these microcircuits, made up of substantia nigra pars reticulata-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated in ways that promoted or inhibited the mice’s movement. The other, which comprises parafascicular thalamus-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated to affect reversal learning, the researchers found. Activation or inhibition of either circuit was not seen affecting function in the other.
The results shed light on the functional organization of the different basal ganglia nuclei at the circuit level, and suggest, the authors argued, that differences in how different neuronal subpopulations adapt to dopamine loss could explain some of the patterns of progression seen in Parkinson’s disease.
The findings “establish the differential contributions from two distinct GPe-PV microcircuits in specific Parkinsonian-like behaviors linked to early and late stages of the disease,” Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “[F]urther elucidation of the detailed connectivity of GPe subpopulations to their downstream targets … is needed to fully define the function of each microcircuit and design better therapeutic strategies for the various behavioral impairments of Parkinson’s disease.”
Commenting on the research, Stefan Lang, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta said, “While Parkinson’s disease is often referred to as a movement disorder, it is well known that nonmotor symptoms, including cognitive and behavioral impairment, are common and debilitating. Impairment of basal ganglia function is known to contribute to these different symptom domains, though the specific circuits have never been elucidated. [Dr.] Lilascharoen et al. tease apart specific basal ganglia circuits associated with motor and behavioral symptoms, thereby providing evidence that distinct microcircuits might contribute to unique behaviours. As technological advances in neuromodulatory therapies continue to improve the spatial and temporal resolution of stimulation, future treatments may allow for specific targeting of behavioral impairment symptoms in Parkinson’s disease.”
Dr. Lilascharoen and Dr. Lang did not report outside funding or conflicts of interest.
FROM NATURE NEUROSCIENCE
Ubrogepant safety and efficacy not affected by triptan therapy
according to a study published in Headache.
“The goal is to get migraine attacks under control as quickly as you can with as few adverse events as possible,” said lead author Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad, California. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and well tolerated because it has few adverse events.”
Migraine disorder is the third most prevalent disease, and at least one person living in 25% of all U.S. households has the condition.
Clinicians have a wide range of medications at their disposal to treat migraines. These drug classes include triptans, ditans, NSAIDs, dihydroergotamine, and combination analgesics. Although numerous pharmacologic options are available to manage this patient population, an estimated 95% of patients who take oral medications to alleviate their migraine symptoms still fail to achieve relief with at least one acute episode.
Triptans remain a common option and first-line choice for acute migraine relief, but poor tolerability, among other factors, continue to limit their effectiveness. Moreover, their vasoconstrictive properties preclude their use in specific patient populations, such as those who have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebral vascular accident. These circumstances, combined with other unmet clinical needs in migraine, have prompted researchers to explore new options, including a newer class of drugs – CGRP receptor antagonists. An endogenous protein, CGRP, has inflammatory and pronociceptive properties that play an active role in contributing to migraine pathogenesis.
Efficacy analyzed by triptan response
To investigate the effects of anti-CGRP treatment in patients with migraine who have a previous history of triptan use, researchers conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, single-attack trials, known as ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II.
Trial participants ranged in age from 18 to 75 years with a documented history of migraines with or without aura. In ACHIEVE I, investigators randomized 1,327 participants 1:1:1 to receive placebo, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg and placebo. Randomized patients in ACHIEVE II (n = 1,355) received placebo, ubrogepant 25 mg, or ubrogepant 50 mg to treat a single episode. During the screening process, researchers further placed patients in one of three groups based on their previous triptan use – triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naive. Patients were further randomized based on their previous experience with triptans and whether they currently used them for migraine prevention. Patients participating in the study had up to 60 days to treat one qualifying migraine of moderate or severe nature at home.
The studies had two primary endpoints. The first was freedom from pain at the 2-hour mark following the initial dose, defined as decreased headache severity from moderate or severe at baseline to no pain. The other primary endpoint was the absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) – photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea – 2 hours after the initial ubrogepant dose.
The pooled analysis collated data from 1,799 patients in both studies (placebo, n = 912; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 887). Patients fell into the following categories: 682 triptan responders (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant, n = 332); 451 triptan-insufficient responders (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 triptan naive (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 337).
Based on the data, approximately 25% of the patients enrolled in the study fell into the triptan-insufficient category. Of this subpopulation, about 80% of the patients in each treatment group experienced insufficient efficacy when using triptans. In each treatment group of insufficient responders, approximately 17% of patients cited tolerability issues, and 3% had contraindications that precluded them from triptan therapy.
The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. The highest percentage of participants experiencing a treatment-related TEAE in the pooled ubrogepant 50-mg treatment group was found in the triptan-insufficient responders (10.4%), whereas the highest percentage in the placebo group was found in the triptan-naive subgroup (9.7%). No serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in any subgroup.
The researchers concluded that “ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan naive based on their historical experience with triptans.”
Payers limit use
Despite the promising data, payer hurdles limit ubrogepant’s use, said Stewart Tepper, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tepper, a professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., was not involved in the study. “The study shows that ubrogepant will work as well as those who have not responded well to triptans, which is key,” Dr. Tepper said. “However, payers have set up step edits in which patients aren’t allowed to get ubrogepant unless they fail therapy with at least two triptans.”
Dr. Blumenfeld discounts the rationale behind requiring patients to try a second triptan after failing initial triptan therapy. “There are plenty of studies showing that if you fail one triptan, you’re likely to fail another,” he said. “Why would you put the patient on a different triptan when you could switch them to another drug with a different mechanism of action?”
The results showed that more patients in the ubrogepant 50-mg arm achieved pain freedom than those in the placebo arm within 2 hours after the initial dose in each group.
“Migraine is a very disabling condition, so you want to get the attack under control as quickly as possible while limiting the risk for potential side effects,” said Dr. Blumenfeld. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and with very few adverse effects, but its use is limited because insurance companies require the failure of several triptans.”
One limitation of the study is that it is a subanalysis.
Dr. Blumenfeld has disclosed advisory board service, consulting, speaking, and authorship for AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Theranica, and Zoscano.
according to a study published in Headache.
“The goal is to get migraine attacks under control as quickly as you can with as few adverse events as possible,” said lead author Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad, California. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and well tolerated because it has few adverse events.”
Migraine disorder is the third most prevalent disease, and at least one person living in 25% of all U.S. households has the condition.
Clinicians have a wide range of medications at their disposal to treat migraines. These drug classes include triptans, ditans, NSAIDs, dihydroergotamine, and combination analgesics. Although numerous pharmacologic options are available to manage this patient population, an estimated 95% of patients who take oral medications to alleviate their migraine symptoms still fail to achieve relief with at least one acute episode.
Triptans remain a common option and first-line choice for acute migraine relief, but poor tolerability, among other factors, continue to limit their effectiveness. Moreover, their vasoconstrictive properties preclude their use in specific patient populations, such as those who have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebral vascular accident. These circumstances, combined with other unmet clinical needs in migraine, have prompted researchers to explore new options, including a newer class of drugs – CGRP receptor antagonists. An endogenous protein, CGRP, has inflammatory and pronociceptive properties that play an active role in contributing to migraine pathogenesis.
Efficacy analyzed by triptan response
To investigate the effects of anti-CGRP treatment in patients with migraine who have a previous history of triptan use, researchers conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, single-attack trials, known as ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II.
Trial participants ranged in age from 18 to 75 years with a documented history of migraines with or without aura. In ACHIEVE I, investigators randomized 1,327 participants 1:1:1 to receive placebo, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg and placebo. Randomized patients in ACHIEVE II (n = 1,355) received placebo, ubrogepant 25 mg, or ubrogepant 50 mg to treat a single episode. During the screening process, researchers further placed patients in one of three groups based on their previous triptan use – triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naive. Patients were further randomized based on their previous experience with triptans and whether they currently used them for migraine prevention. Patients participating in the study had up to 60 days to treat one qualifying migraine of moderate or severe nature at home.
The studies had two primary endpoints. The first was freedom from pain at the 2-hour mark following the initial dose, defined as decreased headache severity from moderate or severe at baseline to no pain. The other primary endpoint was the absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) – photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea – 2 hours after the initial ubrogepant dose.
The pooled analysis collated data from 1,799 patients in both studies (placebo, n = 912; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 887). Patients fell into the following categories: 682 triptan responders (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant, n = 332); 451 triptan-insufficient responders (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 triptan naive (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 337).
Based on the data, approximately 25% of the patients enrolled in the study fell into the triptan-insufficient category. Of this subpopulation, about 80% of the patients in each treatment group experienced insufficient efficacy when using triptans. In each treatment group of insufficient responders, approximately 17% of patients cited tolerability issues, and 3% had contraindications that precluded them from triptan therapy.
The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. The highest percentage of participants experiencing a treatment-related TEAE in the pooled ubrogepant 50-mg treatment group was found in the triptan-insufficient responders (10.4%), whereas the highest percentage in the placebo group was found in the triptan-naive subgroup (9.7%). No serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in any subgroup.
The researchers concluded that “ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan naive based on their historical experience with triptans.”
Payers limit use
Despite the promising data, payer hurdles limit ubrogepant’s use, said Stewart Tepper, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tepper, a professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., was not involved in the study. “The study shows that ubrogepant will work as well as those who have not responded well to triptans, which is key,” Dr. Tepper said. “However, payers have set up step edits in which patients aren’t allowed to get ubrogepant unless they fail therapy with at least two triptans.”
Dr. Blumenfeld discounts the rationale behind requiring patients to try a second triptan after failing initial triptan therapy. “There are plenty of studies showing that if you fail one triptan, you’re likely to fail another,” he said. “Why would you put the patient on a different triptan when you could switch them to another drug with a different mechanism of action?”
The results showed that more patients in the ubrogepant 50-mg arm achieved pain freedom than those in the placebo arm within 2 hours after the initial dose in each group.
“Migraine is a very disabling condition, so you want to get the attack under control as quickly as possible while limiting the risk for potential side effects,” said Dr. Blumenfeld. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and with very few adverse effects, but its use is limited because insurance companies require the failure of several triptans.”
One limitation of the study is that it is a subanalysis.
Dr. Blumenfeld has disclosed advisory board service, consulting, speaking, and authorship for AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Theranica, and Zoscano.
according to a study published in Headache.
“The goal is to get migraine attacks under control as quickly as you can with as few adverse events as possible,” said lead author Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad, California. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and well tolerated because it has few adverse events.”
Migraine disorder is the third most prevalent disease, and at least one person living in 25% of all U.S. households has the condition.
Clinicians have a wide range of medications at their disposal to treat migraines. These drug classes include triptans, ditans, NSAIDs, dihydroergotamine, and combination analgesics. Although numerous pharmacologic options are available to manage this patient population, an estimated 95% of patients who take oral medications to alleviate their migraine symptoms still fail to achieve relief with at least one acute episode.
Triptans remain a common option and first-line choice for acute migraine relief, but poor tolerability, among other factors, continue to limit their effectiveness. Moreover, their vasoconstrictive properties preclude their use in specific patient populations, such as those who have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebral vascular accident. These circumstances, combined with other unmet clinical needs in migraine, have prompted researchers to explore new options, including a newer class of drugs – CGRP receptor antagonists. An endogenous protein, CGRP, has inflammatory and pronociceptive properties that play an active role in contributing to migraine pathogenesis.
Efficacy analyzed by triptan response
To investigate the effects of anti-CGRP treatment in patients with migraine who have a previous history of triptan use, researchers conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, single-attack trials, known as ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II.
Trial participants ranged in age from 18 to 75 years with a documented history of migraines with or without aura. In ACHIEVE I, investigators randomized 1,327 participants 1:1:1 to receive placebo, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg and placebo. Randomized patients in ACHIEVE II (n = 1,355) received placebo, ubrogepant 25 mg, or ubrogepant 50 mg to treat a single episode. During the screening process, researchers further placed patients in one of three groups based on their previous triptan use – triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naive. Patients were further randomized based on their previous experience with triptans and whether they currently used them for migraine prevention. Patients participating in the study had up to 60 days to treat one qualifying migraine of moderate or severe nature at home.
The studies had two primary endpoints. The first was freedom from pain at the 2-hour mark following the initial dose, defined as decreased headache severity from moderate or severe at baseline to no pain. The other primary endpoint was the absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) – photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea – 2 hours after the initial ubrogepant dose.
The pooled analysis collated data from 1,799 patients in both studies (placebo, n = 912; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 887). Patients fell into the following categories: 682 triptan responders (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant, n = 332); 451 triptan-insufficient responders (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 triptan naive (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 337).
Based on the data, approximately 25% of the patients enrolled in the study fell into the triptan-insufficient category. Of this subpopulation, about 80% of the patients in each treatment group experienced insufficient efficacy when using triptans. In each treatment group of insufficient responders, approximately 17% of patients cited tolerability issues, and 3% had contraindications that precluded them from triptan therapy.
The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. The highest percentage of participants experiencing a treatment-related TEAE in the pooled ubrogepant 50-mg treatment group was found in the triptan-insufficient responders (10.4%), whereas the highest percentage in the placebo group was found in the triptan-naive subgroup (9.7%). No serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in any subgroup.
The researchers concluded that “ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan naive based on their historical experience with triptans.”
Payers limit use
Despite the promising data, payer hurdles limit ubrogepant’s use, said Stewart Tepper, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tepper, a professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., was not involved in the study. “The study shows that ubrogepant will work as well as those who have not responded well to triptans, which is key,” Dr. Tepper said. “However, payers have set up step edits in which patients aren’t allowed to get ubrogepant unless they fail therapy with at least two triptans.”
Dr. Blumenfeld discounts the rationale behind requiring patients to try a second triptan after failing initial triptan therapy. “There are plenty of studies showing that if you fail one triptan, you’re likely to fail another,” he said. “Why would you put the patient on a different triptan when you could switch them to another drug with a different mechanism of action?”
The results showed that more patients in the ubrogepant 50-mg arm achieved pain freedom than those in the placebo arm within 2 hours after the initial dose in each group.
“Migraine is a very disabling condition, so you want to get the attack under control as quickly as possible while limiting the risk for potential side effects,” said Dr. Blumenfeld. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and with very few adverse effects, but its use is limited because insurance companies require the failure of several triptans.”
One limitation of the study is that it is a subanalysis.
Dr. Blumenfeld has disclosed advisory board service, consulting, speaking, and authorship for AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Theranica, and Zoscano.
FROM HEADACHE
Can exercise prevent cognitive decline in patients with early Parkinson’s disease?
, new research suggests. Investigators found that patients with Parkinson’s disease who were APOE epsilon4 carriers had greater cognitive decline compared with non-APOE epsilon4 carriers, but the findings also revealed higher physical activity appeared to slow cognitive decline in this higher risk group.
“The main finding of the current study is that higher physical activity was related to slower APOE epsilon4-associated cognitive decline in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, which was shown to be robust in sensitivity analyses,” wrote the researchers, led by Ryul Kim, MD, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Korea.
The study was published online March 31 in Neurology.
Unclear mechanism
The APOE epsilon4 allele is known to be a “major risk factor” for Alzheimer’s disease, but “accumulating evidence shows that this allele also has a potential role in cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted.
Previous research shows physical activity has beneficial effects in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but the mechanisms underlying these effects are “not well understood.” Additional data suggest physical activity modifies the APOE epsilon4 effect on the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease.
“These observations led us to hypothesize that physical activity also plays a role in modulating the association between APOE [epsilon4] and cognition in Parkinson’s disease,” but no studies have yet reported on this interaction in patients with Parkinson’s disease, the authors noted.
To investigate, they drew on data from the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) – a cohort study conducted to identify Parkinson’s disease progression markers.
The current analysis included 173 patients recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease but not yet treated for the condition. The cohort’s mean age was 63.3 ± 10.0 years, age of Parkinson’s disease onset was 59.4 ± 10.0 years, and 68% were male. Of these participants, 46 were APOE epsilon4 carriers.
Dopamine transporter (DAT) activity was assessed using imaging at enrollment and again at years 2 and 4. Cognitive function was assessed at years 2, 3, and 4 using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test.
Protective effect
Although APOE epsilon4 carriers tended to be younger than noncarriers, the age of Parkinson’s disease onset did not differ between the 2 groups, and there were also no significant differences between the groups in demographic and clinical variables.
There were larger declines in MoCA scores in the APOE epsilon4 carriers versus the noncarriers (0.21 ± 1.40 and 0.08 ± 1.15 respectively).
The APOE epsilon4 allele was associated with a “steeper” rate of cognitive decline, compared with the non-APOE epsilon4 allele (estimate −1.33 [95% confidence interval, −2.12 to −0.47, P = .002).
There was a significant interaction of physical activity, APOE epsilon4, and time: Higher physical activity was associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline (estimate 0.007 [0.003 to 0.011, P = .001).
However, the researchers found no significant main effects of the APOE epsilon4 allele or physical activity on the change in the MoCA score.
“Considering that dopaminergic treatment may affect cognitive function, particularly in the early stage of Parkinson’s disease, we additionally included the levodopa daily equivalent dose (LEDD) and its interaction with time as covariates in the model,” the investigators noted.
They found that the interactive association between physical activity and the APOE epsilon4 allele on cognitive decline remained significant, even when participants who had normal cognitive performance at year 2 were included in the study population or when LEDD variables were included as covariates in the model.
Both high- and low-intensity exercise were significantly associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline.
There was no significant interaction between physical activity and APOE epsilon4 with changes in striatal DAT activities.
“Increased physical activity attenuated APOE epsilon4-related vulnerability to early cognitive decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted, adding that the effect “did not appear to be mediated by striatal dopamine activity.”
They hypothesized that physical activity may “offer a greater protective effect” on cerebral amyloid accumulation in APOE epsilon4 carriers. It is also possible that physical activity will counteract the negative impact of the APOE epsilon4 allele through improved brain mechanism and decreased neuroinflammation.
‘The next blockbuster drug’
Commenting on the study in an interview, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, director of the center of expertise for Parkinson & movement disorders, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands, said exercise might be seen as “the next blockbuster drug.”
Dr. Bloem, who was not involved in the study, noted there is “quite robust evidence now that exercise acts as symptomatic therapy, like a drug, alleviating sleep [disturbances], depression, constipation, and motor symptoms.”
The study “sheds new light on the idea of exercise as not only alleviating symptoms but actually as a potential disease modifier,” said Dr. Bloem, whose research has focused on the beneficial effects of a rigorous exercise program, combined with tablet-based gamificaton and a reward system in stabilizing motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease over time.
“The reward system created additional motivation for the patients with Parkinson’s disease who often experience depression and apathy that interfere with motivation,” he said.
The current study has important take-home messages for practicing clinicians. “Physicians should encourage exercise in patients, and patients should also take the lead themselves,” Dr. Bloem said. “It doesn’t matter what type of exercise you do, but it should have an aerobic component, should be safe so the patient doesn’t fall down, should have enough intensity to cause the patient to pant, and should be individualized and enjoyable so the patients stick to it,” he emphasized.
Dr. Bloem noted that yoga and mindfulness are also helpful. “If we’ve learned anything from the COVID-19 crisis, it’s that chronic stress is deleterious to all of us and particularly bad for people with PD, because you need dopamine to be able to handle stress, and the lack of dopamine in people with PD makes them deteriorate faster.”
The study was supported by a research grant of National Research Foundation by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) in Korea. The authors and Dr. Bloem have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. Investigators found that patients with Parkinson’s disease who were APOE epsilon4 carriers had greater cognitive decline compared with non-APOE epsilon4 carriers, but the findings also revealed higher physical activity appeared to slow cognitive decline in this higher risk group.
“The main finding of the current study is that higher physical activity was related to slower APOE epsilon4-associated cognitive decline in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, which was shown to be robust in sensitivity analyses,” wrote the researchers, led by Ryul Kim, MD, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Korea.
The study was published online March 31 in Neurology.
Unclear mechanism
The APOE epsilon4 allele is known to be a “major risk factor” for Alzheimer’s disease, but “accumulating evidence shows that this allele also has a potential role in cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted.
Previous research shows physical activity has beneficial effects in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but the mechanisms underlying these effects are “not well understood.” Additional data suggest physical activity modifies the APOE epsilon4 effect on the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease.
“These observations led us to hypothesize that physical activity also plays a role in modulating the association between APOE [epsilon4] and cognition in Parkinson’s disease,” but no studies have yet reported on this interaction in patients with Parkinson’s disease, the authors noted.
To investigate, they drew on data from the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) – a cohort study conducted to identify Parkinson’s disease progression markers.
The current analysis included 173 patients recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease but not yet treated for the condition. The cohort’s mean age was 63.3 ± 10.0 years, age of Parkinson’s disease onset was 59.4 ± 10.0 years, and 68% were male. Of these participants, 46 were APOE epsilon4 carriers.
Dopamine transporter (DAT) activity was assessed using imaging at enrollment and again at years 2 and 4. Cognitive function was assessed at years 2, 3, and 4 using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test.
Protective effect
Although APOE epsilon4 carriers tended to be younger than noncarriers, the age of Parkinson’s disease onset did not differ between the 2 groups, and there were also no significant differences between the groups in demographic and clinical variables.
There were larger declines in MoCA scores in the APOE epsilon4 carriers versus the noncarriers (0.21 ± 1.40 and 0.08 ± 1.15 respectively).
The APOE epsilon4 allele was associated with a “steeper” rate of cognitive decline, compared with the non-APOE epsilon4 allele (estimate −1.33 [95% confidence interval, −2.12 to −0.47, P = .002).
There was a significant interaction of physical activity, APOE epsilon4, and time: Higher physical activity was associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline (estimate 0.007 [0.003 to 0.011, P = .001).
However, the researchers found no significant main effects of the APOE epsilon4 allele or physical activity on the change in the MoCA score.
“Considering that dopaminergic treatment may affect cognitive function, particularly in the early stage of Parkinson’s disease, we additionally included the levodopa daily equivalent dose (LEDD) and its interaction with time as covariates in the model,” the investigators noted.
They found that the interactive association between physical activity and the APOE epsilon4 allele on cognitive decline remained significant, even when participants who had normal cognitive performance at year 2 were included in the study population or when LEDD variables were included as covariates in the model.
Both high- and low-intensity exercise were significantly associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline.
There was no significant interaction between physical activity and APOE epsilon4 with changes in striatal DAT activities.
“Increased physical activity attenuated APOE epsilon4-related vulnerability to early cognitive decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted, adding that the effect “did not appear to be mediated by striatal dopamine activity.”
They hypothesized that physical activity may “offer a greater protective effect” on cerebral amyloid accumulation in APOE epsilon4 carriers. It is also possible that physical activity will counteract the negative impact of the APOE epsilon4 allele through improved brain mechanism and decreased neuroinflammation.
‘The next blockbuster drug’
Commenting on the study in an interview, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, director of the center of expertise for Parkinson & movement disorders, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands, said exercise might be seen as “the next blockbuster drug.”
Dr. Bloem, who was not involved in the study, noted there is “quite robust evidence now that exercise acts as symptomatic therapy, like a drug, alleviating sleep [disturbances], depression, constipation, and motor symptoms.”
The study “sheds new light on the idea of exercise as not only alleviating symptoms but actually as a potential disease modifier,” said Dr. Bloem, whose research has focused on the beneficial effects of a rigorous exercise program, combined with tablet-based gamificaton and a reward system in stabilizing motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease over time.
“The reward system created additional motivation for the patients with Parkinson’s disease who often experience depression and apathy that interfere with motivation,” he said.
The current study has important take-home messages for practicing clinicians. “Physicians should encourage exercise in patients, and patients should also take the lead themselves,” Dr. Bloem said. “It doesn’t matter what type of exercise you do, but it should have an aerobic component, should be safe so the patient doesn’t fall down, should have enough intensity to cause the patient to pant, and should be individualized and enjoyable so the patients stick to it,” he emphasized.
Dr. Bloem noted that yoga and mindfulness are also helpful. “If we’ve learned anything from the COVID-19 crisis, it’s that chronic stress is deleterious to all of us and particularly bad for people with PD, because you need dopamine to be able to handle stress, and the lack of dopamine in people with PD makes them deteriorate faster.”
The study was supported by a research grant of National Research Foundation by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) in Korea. The authors and Dr. Bloem have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. Investigators found that patients with Parkinson’s disease who were APOE epsilon4 carriers had greater cognitive decline compared with non-APOE epsilon4 carriers, but the findings also revealed higher physical activity appeared to slow cognitive decline in this higher risk group.
“The main finding of the current study is that higher physical activity was related to slower APOE epsilon4-associated cognitive decline in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, which was shown to be robust in sensitivity analyses,” wrote the researchers, led by Ryul Kim, MD, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Korea.
The study was published online March 31 in Neurology.
Unclear mechanism
The APOE epsilon4 allele is known to be a “major risk factor” for Alzheimer’s disease, but “accumulating evidence shows that this allele also has a potential role in cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted.
Previous research shows physical activity has beneficial effects in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but the mechanisms underlying these effects are “not well understood.” Additional data suggest physical activity modifies the APOE epsilon4 effect on the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease.
“These observations led us to hypothesize that physical activity also plays a role in modulating the association between APOE [epsilon4] and cognition in Parkinson’s disease,” but no studies have yet reported on this interaction in patients with Parkinson’s disease, the authors noted.
To investigate, they drew on data from the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) – a cohort study conducted to identify Parkinson’s disease progression markers.
The current analysis included 173 patients recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease but not yet treated for the condition. The cohort’s mean age was 63.3 ± 10.0 years, age of Parkinson’s disease onset was 59.4 ± 10.0 years, and 68% were male. Of these participants, 46 were APOE epsilon4 carriers.
Dopamine transporter (DAT) activity was assessed using imaging at enrollment and again at years 2 and 4. Cognitive function was assessed at years 2, 3, and 4 using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test.
Protective effect
Although APOE epsilon4 carriers tended to be younger than noncarriers, the age of Parkinson’s disease onset did not differ between the 2 groups, and there were also no significant differences between the groups in demographic and clinical variables.
There were larger declines in MoCA scores in the APOE epsilon4 carriers versus the noncarriers (0.21 ± 1.40 and 0.08 ± 1.15 respectively).
The APOE epsilon4 allele was associated with a “steeper” rate of cognitive decline, compared with the non-APOE epsilon4 allele (estimate −1.33 [95% confidence interval, −2.12 to −0.47, P = .002).
There was a significant interaction of physical activity, APOE epsilon4, and time: Higher physical activity was associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline (estimate 0.007 [0.003 to 0.011, P = .001).
However, the researchers found no significant main effects of the APOE epsilon4 allele or physical activity on the change in the MoCA score.
“Considering that dopaminergic treatment may affect cognitive function, particularly in the early stage of Parkinson’s disease, we additionally included the levodopa daily equivalent dose (LEDD) and its interaction with time as covariates in the model,” the investigators noted.
They found that the interactive association between physical activity and the APOE epsilon4 allele on cognitive decline remained significant, even when participants who had normal cognitive performance at year 2 were included in the study population or when LEDD variables were included as covariates in the model.
Both high- and low-intensity exercise were significantly associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline.
There was no significant interaction between physical activity and APOE epsilon4 with changes in striatal DAT activities.
“Increased physical activity attenuated APOE epsilon4-related vulnerability to early cognitive decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted, adding that the effect “did not appear to be mediated by striatal dopamine activity.”
They hypothesized that physical activity may “offer a greater protective effect” on cerebral amyloid accumulation in APOE epsilon4 carriers. It is also possible that physical activity will counteract the negative impact of the APOE epsilon4 allele through improved brain mechanism and decreased neuroinflammation.
‘The next blockbuster drug’
Commenting on the study in an interview, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, director of the center of expertise for Parkinson & movement disorders, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands, said exercise might be seen as “the next blockbuster drug.”
Dr. Bloem, who was not involved in the study, noted there is “quite robust evidence now that exercise acts as symptomatic therapy, like a drug, alleviating sleep [disturbances], depression, constipation, and motor symptoms.”
The study “sheds new light on the idea of exercise as not only alleviating symptoms but actually as a potential disease modifier,” said Dr. Bloem, whose research has focused on the beneficial effects of a rigorous exercise program, combined with tablet-based gamificaton and a reward system in stabilizing motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease over time.
“The reward system created additional motivation for the patients with Parkinson’s disease who often experience depression and apathy that interfere with motivation,” he said.
The current study has important take-home messages for practicing clinicians. “Physicians should encourage exercise in patients, and patients should also take the lead themselves,” Dr. Bloem said. “It doesn’t matter what type of exercise you do, but it should have an aerobic component, should be safe so the patient doesn’t fall down, should have enough intensity to cause the patient to pant, and should be individualized and enjoyable so the patients stick to it,” he emphasized.
Dr. Bloem noted that yoga and mindfulness are also helpful. “If we’ve learned anything from the COVID-19 crisis, it’s that chronic stress is deleterious to all of us and particularly bad for people with PD, because you need dopamine to be able to handle stress, and the lack of dopamine in people with PD makes them deteriorate faster.”
The study was supported by a research grant of National Research Foundation by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) in Korea. The authors and Dr. Bloem have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Green light puts the stop on migraine
, according to results of a small study from the University of Arizona, Tucson.
“This is the first clinical study to evaluate green light exposure as a potential preventive therapy for patients with migraine, “ senior author Mohab M. Ibrahim, MD, PhD, said in a press release. “Now I have another tool in my toolbox to treat one of the most difficult neurologic conditions – migraine.”
“Given the safety, affordability, and efficacy of green light exposure, there is merit to conduct a larger study,” he and coauthors from the university wrote in their paper.
The study included 29 adult patients (average age 52.2 years), 22 with chronic migraine and the rest with episodic migraine who were recruited from the University of Arizona/Banner Medical Center chronic pain clinic. To be included, patients had to meet the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for chronic or episodic migraine, have an average headache pain intensity of 5 out of 10 or greater on the numeric pain scale (NPS) over the 10 weeks prior to enrolling in the study, and be dissatisfied with their current migraine therapy.
The patients were free to start, continue, or discontinue any other migraine treatments as recommended by their physicians as long as this was reported to the study team.
White versus green
The one-way crossover design involved exposure to 10 weeks of white light emitting diodes, for 1-2 hours per day, followed by a 2-week washout period and then 10 weeks’ exposure to green light emitting diodes (GLED) for the same daily duration. The protocol involved use of a light strip emitting an intensity of between 4 and 100 lux measured at approximately 2 m and 1 m from a lux meter.
Patients were instructed to use the light in a dark room, without falling asleep, and to participate in activities that did not require external light sources, such as listening to music, reading books, doing exercises, or engaging in similar activities. The daily minimum exposure of 1 hour, up to a maximum of 2 hours, was to be completed in one sitting.
The primary outcome measure was the number of headache days per month, defined as days with moderate to severe headache pain for at least 4 hours. Secondary outcomes included perceived reduction in duration and intensity of the headache phase of the migraine episodes assessed every 2 weeks with the NPS, improved ability to fall and stay asleep, improved ability to perform work and daily activity, improved quality of life, and reduction of pain medications.
The researchers found that when the patients with chronic migraine and episodic migraine were examined as separate groups, white light exposure did not significantly reduce the number of headache days per month, but when the chronic migraine and episodic migraine groups were combined there was a significant reduction from 18.2 to 16.5 headache days per month.
On the other hand, green light did result in significantly reduced headache days both in the separate (from 7.9 to 2.4 days in the episodic migraine group and 22.3 to 9.4 days in the chronic migraine group) and combined groups (from 18.4 to 7.4 days).
“While some improvement in secondary outcomes was observed with white light emitting diodes, more secondary outcomes with significantly greater magnitude including assessments of quality of life, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Headache Impact Test-6, and Five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional survey without reported side effects were observed with green light emitting diodes,” the authors reported.
“The use of a nonpharmacological therapy such as green light can be of tremendous help to a variety of patients that either do not want to be on medications or do not respond to them,” coauthor Amol M. Patwardhan, MD, PhD, said in the press release. “The beauty of this approach is the lack of associated side effects. If at all, it appears to improve sleep and other quality of life measures,” said Dr. Patwardhan, associate professor and vice chair of research in the University of Arizona’s department of anesthesiology.
Better than white light
Asked to comment on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said research has shown for some time that exposure to green light has beneficial effects in migraine patients. This study, although small, does indicate that green light is more beneficial than is white light and reduces headache days and intensity. “I believe patients would be willing to spend 1-2 hours a day in green light to reduce and improve their migraine with few side effects. A larger randomized trial should be done,” he said.
The study was funded by support from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (to Dr. Ibrahim), the Comprehensive Chronic Pain and Addiction Center–University of Arizona, and the University of Arizona CHiLLI initiative. Dr. Ibrahim and one coauthor have a patent pending through the University of Arizona for use of green light therapy for the management of chronic pain. Dr. Rapoport is a former president of the International Headache Society. He is an editor of Headache and CNS Drugs, and Editor-in-Chief of Neurology Reviews. He reviews for many peer-reviewed journals such as Cephalalgia, Neurology, New England Journal of Medicine, and Headache.
, according to results of a small study from the University of Arizona, Tucson.
“This is the first clinical study to evaluate green light exposure as a potential preventive therapy for patients with migraine, “ senior author Mohab M. Ibrahim, MD, PhD, said in a press release. “Now I have another tool in my toolbox to treat one of the most difficult neurologic conditions – migraine.”
“Given the safety, affordability, and efficacy of green light exposure, there is merit to conduct a larger study,” he and coauthors from the university wrote in their paper.
The study included 29 adult patients (average age 52.2 years), 22 with chronic migraine and the rest with episodic migraine who were recruited from the University of Arizona/Banner Medical Center chronic pain clinic. To be included, patients had to meet the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for chronic or episodic migraine, have an average headache pain intensity of 5 out of 10 or greater on the numeric pain scale (NPS) over the 10 weeks prior to enrolling in the study, and be dissatisfied with their current migraine therapy.
The patients were free to start, continue, or discontinue any other migraine treatments as recommended by their physicians as long as this was reported to the study team.
White versus green
The one-way crossover design involved exposure to 10 weeks of white light emitting diodes, for 1-2 hours per day, followed by a 2-week washout period and then 10 weeks’ exposure to green light emitting diodes (GLED) for the same daily duration. The protocol involved use of a light strip emitting an intensity of between 4 and 100 lux measured at approximately 2 m and 1 m from a lux meter.
Patients were instructed to use the light in a dark room, without falling asleep, and to participate in activities that did not require external light sources, such as listening to music, reading books, doing exercises, or engaging in similar activities. The daily minimum exposure of 1 hour, up to a maximum of 2 hours, was to be completed in one sitting.
The primary outcome measure was the number of headache days per month, defined as days with moderate to severe headache pain for at least 4 hours. Secondary outcomes included perceived reduction in duration and intensity of the headache phase of the migraine episodes assessed every 2 weeks with the NPS, improved ability to fall and stay asleep, improved ability to perform work and daily activity, improved quality of life, and reduction of pain medications.
The researchers found that when the patients with chronic migraine and episodic migraine were examined as separate groups, white light exposure did not significantly reduce the number of headache days per month, but when the chronic migraine and episodic migraine groups were combined there was a significant reduction from 18.2 to 16.5 headache days per month.
On the other hand, green light did result in significantly reduced headache days both in the separate (from 7.9 to 2.4 days in the episodic migraine group and 22.3 to 9.4 days in the chronic migraine group) and combined groups (from 18.4 to 7.4 days).
“While some improvement in secondary outcomes was observed with white light emitting diodes, more secondary outcomes with significantly greater magnitude including assessments of quality of life, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Headache Impact Test-6, and Five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional survey without reported side effects were observed with green light emitting diodes,” the authors reported.
“The use of a nonpharmacological therapy such as green light can be of tremendous help to a variety of patients that either do not want to be on medications or do not respond to them,” coauthor Amol M. Patwardhan, MD, PhD, said in the press release. “The beauty of this approach is the lack of associated side effects. If at all, it appears to improve sleep and other quality of life measures,” said Dr. Patwardhan, associate professor and vice chair of research in the University of Arizona’s department of anesthesiology.
Better than white light
Asked to comment on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said research has shown for some time that exposure to green light has beneficial effects in migraine patients. This study, although small, does indicate that green light is more beneficial than is white light and reduces headache days and intensity. “I believe patients would be willing to spend 1-2 hours a day in green light to reduce and improve their migraine with few side effects. A larger randomized trial should be done,” he said.
The study was funded by support from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (to Dr. Ibrahim), the Comprehensive Chronic Pain and Addiction Center–University of Arizona, and the University of Arizona CHiLLI initiative. Dr. Ibrahim and one coauthor have a patent pending through the University of Arizona for use of green light therapy for the management of chronic pain. Dr. Rapoport is a former president of the International Headache Society. He is an editor of Headache and CNS Drugs, and Editor-in-Chief of Neurology Reviews. He reviews for many peer-reviewed journals such as Cephalalgia, Neurology, New England Journal of Medicine, and Headache.
, according to results of a small study from the University of Arizona, Tucson.
“This is the first clinical study to evaluate green light exposure as a potential preventive therapy for patients with migraine, “ senior author Mohab M. Ibrahim, MD, PhD, said in a press release. “Now I have another tool in my toolbox to treat one of the most difficult neurologic conditions – migraine.”
“Given the safety, affordability, and efficacy of green light exposure, there is merit to conduct a larger study,” he and coauthors from the university wrote in their paper.
The study included 29 adult patients (average age 52.2 years), 22 with chronic migraine and the rest with episodic migraine who were recruited from the University of Arizona/Banner Medical Center chronic pain clinic. To be included, patients had to meet the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for chronic or episodic migraine, have an average headache pain intensity of 5 out of 10 or greater on the numeric pain scale (NPS) over the 10 weeks prior to enrolling in the study, and be dissatisfied with their current migraine therapy.
The patients were free to start, continue, or discontinue any other migraine treatments as recommended by their physicians as long as this was reported to the study team.
White versus green
The one-way crossover design involved exposure to 10 weeks of white light emitting diodes, for 1-2 hours per day, followed by a 2-week washout period and then 10 weeks’ exposure to green light emitting diodes (GLED) for the same daily duration. The protocol involved use of a light strip emitting an intensity of between 4 and 100 lux measured at approximately 2 m and 1 m from a lux meter.
Patients were instructed to use the light in a dark room, without falling asleep, and to participate in activities that did not require external light sources, such as listening to music, reading books, doing exercises, or engaging in similar activities. The daily minimum exposure of 1 hour, up to a maximum of 2 hours, was to be completed in one sitting.
The primary outcome measure was the number of headache days per month, defined as days with moderate to severe headache pain for at least 4 hours. Secondary outcomes included perceived reduction in duration and intensity of the headache phase of the migraine episodes assessed every 2 weeks with the NPS, improved ability to fall and stay asleep, improved ability to perform work and daily activity, improved quality of life, and reduction of pain medications.
The researchers found that when the patients with chronic migraine and episodic migraine were examined as separate groups, white light exposure did not significantly reduce the number of headache days per month, but when the chronic migraine and episodic migraine groups were combined there was a significant reduction from 18.2 to 16.5 headache days per month.
On the other hand, green light did result in significantly reduced headache days both in the separate (from 7.9 to 2.4 days in the episodic migraine group and 22.3 to 9.4 days in the chronic migraine group) and combined groups (from 18.4 to 7.4 days).
“While some improvement in secondary outcomes was observed with white light emitting diodes, more secondary outcomes with significantly greater magnitude including assessments of quality of life, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Headache Impact Test-6, and Five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional survey without reported side effects were observed with green light emitting diodes,” the authors reported.
“The use of a nonpharmacological therapy such as green light can be of tremendous help to a variety of patients that either do not want to be on medications or do not respond to them,” coauthor Amol M. Patwardhan, MD, PhD, said in the press release. “The beauty of this approach is the lack of associated side effects. If at all, it appears to improve sleep and other quality of life measures,” said Dr. Patwardhan, associate professor and vice chair of research in the University of Arizona’s department of anesthesiology.
Better than white light
Asked to comment on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said research has shown for some time that exposure to green light has beneficial effects in migraine patients. This study, although small, does indicate that green light is more beneficial than is white light and reduces headache days and intensity. “I believe patients would be willing to spend 1-2 hours a day in green light to reduce and improve their migraine with few side effects. A larger randomized trial should be done,” he said.
The study was funded by support from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (to Dr. Ibrahim), the Comprehensive Chronic Pain and Addiction Center–University of Arizona, and the University of Arizona CHiLLI initiative. Dr. Ibrahim and one coauthor have a patent pending through the University of Arizona for use of green light therapy for the management of chronic pain. Dr. Rapoport is a former president of the International Headache Society. He is an editor of Headache and CNS Drugs, and Editor-in-Chief of Neurology Reviews. He reviews for many peer-reviewed journals such as Cephalalgia, Neurology, New England Journal of Medicine, and Headache.
FROM CEPHALALGIA
Simple blood test plus AI may flag early-stage Alzheimer’s disease
, raising the prospect of early intervention when effective treatments become available.
In a study, investigators used six AI methodologies, including Deep Learning, to assess blood leukocyte epigenomic biomarkers. They found more than 150 genetic differences among study participants with Alzheimer’s disease in comparison with participants who did not have Alzheimer’s disease.
All of the AI platforms were effective in predicting Alzheimer’s disease. Deep Learning’s assessment of intragenic cytosine-phosphate-guanines (CpGs) had sensitivity and specificity rates of 97%.
“It’s almost as if the leukocytes have become a newspaper to tell us, ‘This is what is going on in the brain,’ “ lead author Ray Bahado-Singh, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Oakland University, Auburn Hills, Mich., said in a news release.
The researchers noted that the findings, if replicated in future studies, may help in providing Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses “much earlier” in the disease process. “The holy grail is to identify patients in the preclinical stage so effective early interventions, including new medications, can be studied and ultimately used,” Dr. Bahado-Singh said.
“This certainly isn’t the final step in Alzheimer’s research, but I think this represents a significant change in direction,” he told attendees at a press briefing.
The findings were published online March 31 in PLOS ONE.
Silver tsunami
The investigators noted that Alzheimer’s disease is often diagnosed when the disease is in its later stages, after irreversible brain damage has occurred. “There is currently no cure for the disease, and the treatment is limited to drugs that attempt to treat symptoms and have little effect on the disease’s progression,” they noted.
Coinvestigator Khaled Imam, MD, director of geriatric medicine for Beaumont Health in Michigan, pointed out that although MRI and lumbar puncture can identify Alzheimer’s disease early on, the processes are expensive and/or invasive.
“Having biomarkers in the blood ... and being able to identify [Alzheimer’s disease] years before symptoms start, hopefully we’d be able to intervene early on in the process of the disease,” Dr. Imam said.
It is estimated that the number of Americans aged 85 and older will triple by 2050. This impending “silver tsunami,” which will come with a commensurate increase in Alzheimer’s disease cases, makes it even more important to be able to diagnose the disease early on, he noted.
The study included 24 individuals with late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (70.8% women; mean age, 83 years); 24 were deemed to be “cognitively healthy” (66.7% women; mean age, 80 years). About 500 ng of genomic DNA was extracted from whole-blood samples from each participant.
The researchers used the Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip array, and the samples were then examined for markers of methylation that would “indicate the disease process has started,” they noted.
In addition to Deep Learning, the five other AI platforms were the Support Vector Machine, Generalized Linear Model, Prediction Analysis for Microarrays, Random Forest, and Linear Discriminant Analysis.
These platforms were used to assess leukocyte genome changes. To predict Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers also used Ingenuity Pathway Analysis.
Significant “chemical changes”
Results showed that the Alzheimer’s disease group had 152 significantly differentially methylated CpGs in 171 genes in comparison with the non-Alzheimer’s disease group (false discovery rate P value < .05).
As a whole, using intragenic and intergenic/extragenic CpGs, the AI platforms were effective in predicting who had Alzheimer’s disease (area under the curve [AUC], ≥ 0.93). Using intragenic markers, the AUC for Deep Learning was 0.99.
“We looked at close to a million different sites, and we saw some chemical changes that we know are associated with alteration or change in gene function,” Dr. Bahado-Singh said.
Altered genes that were found in the Alzheimer’s disease group included CR1L, CTSV, S1PR1, and LTB4R – all of which “have been previously linked with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” the researchers noted. They also found the methylated genes CTSV and PRMT5, both of which have been previously associated with cardiovascular disease.
“A significant strength of our study is the novelty, i.e. the use of blood leukocytes to accurately detect Alzheimer’s disease and also for interrogating the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Bahado-Singh said that the test let them identify changes in cells in the blood, “giving us a comprehensive account not only of the fact that the brain is being affected by Alzheimer’s disease but it’s telling us what kinds of processes are going on in the brain.
“Normally you don’t have access to the brain. This gives us a simple blood test to get an ongoing reading of the course of events in the brain – and potentially tell us very early on before the onset of symptoms,” he added.
Cautiously optimistic
During the question-and-answer session following his presentation at the briefing, Dr. Bahado-Singh reiterated that they are at a very early stage in the research and were not able to make clinical recommendations at this point. However, he added, “There was evidence that DNA methylation change could likely precede the onset of abnormalities in the cells that give rise to the disease.”
Coinvestigator Stewart Graham, PhD, director of Alzheimer’s research at Beaumont Health, added that although the initial study findings led to some excitement for the team, “we have to be very conservative with what we say.”
He noted that the findings need to be replicated in a more diverse population. Still, “we’re excited at the moment and looking forward to seeing what the future results hold,” Dr. Graham said.
Dr. Bahado-Singh said that if larger studies confirm the findings and the test is viable, it would make sense to use it as a screen for individuals older than 65. He noted that because of the aging of the population, “this subset of individuals will constitute a larger and larger fraction of the population globally.”
Still early days
Commenting on the findings, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the investigators used an “interesting” diagnostic process.
“It was a unique approach to looking at and trying to understand what might be some of the biological underpinnings and using these tools and technologies to determine if they’re able to differentiate individuals with Alzheimer’s disease” from those without Alzheimer’s disease, said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved with the research.
“Ultimately, we want to know who is at greater risk, who may have some of the changing biology at the earliest time point so that we can intervene to stop the progression of the disease,” she said.
She pointed out that a number of types of biomarker tests are currently under investigation, many of which are measuring different outcomes. “And that’s what we want to see going forward. We want to have as many tools in our toolbox that allow us to accurately diagnose at that earliest time point,” Dr. Snyder said.
“At this point, [the current study] is still pretty early, so it needs to be replicated and then expanded to larger groups to really understand what they may be seeing,” she added.
Dr. Bahado-Singh, Dr. Imam, Dr. Graham, and Dr. Snyder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, raising the prospect of early intervention when effective treatments become available.
In a study, investigators used six AI methodologies, including Deep Learning, to assess blood leukocyte epigenomic biomarkers. They found more than 150 genetic differences among study participants with Alzheimer’s disease in comparison with participants who did not have Alzheimer’s disease.
All of the AI platforms were effective in predicting Alzheimer’s disease. Deep Learning’s assessment of intragenic cytosine-phosphate-guanines (CpGs) had sensitivity and specificity rates of 97%.
“It’s almost as if the leukocytes have become a newspaper to tell us, ‘This is what is going on in the brain,’ “ lead author Ray Bahado-Singh, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Oakland University, Auburn Hills, Mich., said in a news release.
The researchers noted that the findings, if replicated in future studies, may help in providing Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses “much earlier” in the disease process. “The holy grail is to identify patients in the preclinical stage so effective early interventions, including new medications, can be studied and ultimately used,” Dr. Bahado-Singh said.
“This certainly isn’t the final step in Alzheimer’s research, but I think this represents a significant change in direction,” he told attendees at a press briefing.
The findings were published online March 31 in PLOS ONE.
Silver tsunami
The investigators noted that Alzheimer’s disease is often diagnosed when the disease is in its later stages, after irreversible brain damage has occurred. “There is currently no cure for the disease, and the treatment is limited to drugs that attempt to treat symptoms and have little effect on the disease’s progression,” they noted.
Coinvestigator Khaled Imam, MD, director of geriatric medicine for Beaumont Health in Michigan, pointed out that although MRI and lumbar puncture can identify Alzheimer’s disease early on, the processes are expensive and/or invasive.
“Having biomarkers in the blood ... and being able to identify [Alzheimer’s disease] years before symptoms start, hopefully we’d be able to intervene early on in the process of the disease,” Dr. Imam said.
It is estimated that the number of Americans aged 85 and older will triple by 2050. This impending “silver tsunami,” which will come with a commensurate increase in Alzheimer’s disease cases, makes it even more important to be able to diagnose the disease early on, he noted.
The study included 24 individuals with late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (70.8% women; mean age, 83 years); 24 were deemed to be “cognitively healthy” (66.7% women; mean age, 80 years). About 500 ng of genomic DNA was extracted from whole-blood samples from each participant.
The researchers used the Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip array, and the samples were then examined for markers of methylation that would “indicate the disease process has started,” they noted.
In addition to Deep Learning, the five other AI platforms were the Support Vector Machine, Generalized Linear Model, Prediction Analysis for Microarrays, Random Forest, and Linear Discriminant Analysis.
These platforms were used to assess leukocyte genome changes. To predict Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers also used Ingenuity Pathway Analysis.
Significant “chemical changes”
Results showed that the Alzheimer’s disease group had 152 significantly differentially methylated CpGs in 171 genes in comparison with the non-Alzheimer’s disease group (false discovery rate P value < .05).
As a whole, using intragenic and intergenic/extragenic CpGs, the AI platforms were effective in predicting who had Alzheimer’s disease (area under the curve [AUC], ≥ 0.93). Using intragenic markers, the AUC for Deep Learning was 0.99.
“We looked at close to a million different sites, and we saw some chemical changes that we know are associated with alteration or change in gene function,” Dr. Bahado-Singh said.
Altered genes that were found in the Alzheimer’s disease group included CR1L, CTSV, S1PR1, and LTB4R – all of which “have been previously linked with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” the researchers noted. They also found the methylated genes CTSV and PRMT5, both of which have been previously associated with cardiovascular disease.
“A significant strength of our study is the novelty, i.e. the use of blood leukocytes to accurately detect Alzheimer’s disease and also for interrogating the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Bahado-Singh said that the test let them identify changes in cells in the blood, “giving us a comprehensive account not only of the fact that the brain is being affected by Alzheimer’s disease but it’s telling us what kinds of processes are going on in the brain.
“Normally you don’t have access to the brain. This gives us a simple blood test to get an ongoing reading of the course of events in the brain – and potentially tell us very early on before the onset of symptoms,” he added.
Cautiously optimistic
During the question-and-answer session following his presentation at the briefing, Dr. Bahado-Singh reiterated that they are at a very early stage in the research and were not able to make clinical recommendations at this point. However, he added, “There was evidence that DNA methylation change could likely precede the onset of abnormalities in the cells that give rise to the disease.”
Coinvestigator Stewart Graham, PhD, director of Alzheimer’s research at Beaumont Health, added that although the initial study findings led to some excitement for the team, “we have to be very conservative with what we say.”
He noted that the findings need to be replicated in a more diverse population. Still, “we’re excited at the moment and looking forward to seeing what the future results hold,” Dr. Graham said.
Dr. Bahado-Singh said that if larger studies confirm the findings and the test is viable, it would make sense to use it as a screen for individuals older than 65. He noted that because of the aging of the population, “this subset of individuals will constitute a larger and larger fraction of the population globally.”
Still early days
Commenting on the findings, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the investigators used an “interesting” diagnostic process.
“It was a unique approach to looking at and trying to understand what might be some of the biological underpinnings and using these tools and technologies to determine if they’re able to differentiate individuals with Alzheimer’s disease” from those without Alzheimer’s disease, said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved with the research.
“Ultimately, we want to know who is at greater risk, who may have some of the changing biology at the earliest time point so that we can intervene to stop the progression of the disease,” she said.
She pointed out that a number of types of biomarker tests are currently under investigation, many of which are measuring different outcomes. “And that’s what we want to see going forward. We want to have as many tools in our toolbox that allow us to accurately diagnose at that earliest time point,” Dr. Snyder said.
“At this point, [the current study] is still pretty early, so it needs to be replicated and then expanded to larger groups to really understand what they may be seeing,” she added.
Dr. Bahado-Singh, Dr. Imam, Dr. Graham, and Dr. Snyder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, raising the prospect of early intervention when effective treatments become available.
In a study, investigators used six AI methodologies, including Deep Learning, to assess blood leukocyte epigenomic biomarkers. They found more than 150 genetic differences among study participants with Alzheimer’s disease in comparison with participants who did not have Alzheimer’s disease.
All of the AI platforms were effective in predicting Alzheimer’s disease. Deep Learning’s assessment of intragenic cytosine-phosphate-guanines (CpGs) had sensitivity and specificity rates of 97%.
“It’s almost as if the leukocytes have become a newspaper to tell us, ‘This is what is going on in the brain,’ “ lead author Ray Bahado-Singh, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Oakland University, Auburn Hills, Mich., said in a news release.
The researchers noted that the findings, if replicated in future studies, may help in providing Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses “much earlier” in the disease process. “The holy grail is to identify patients in the preclinical stage so effective early interventions, including new medications, can be studied and ultimately used,” Dr. Bahado-Singh said.
“This certainly isn’t the final step in Alzheimer’s research, but I think this represents a significant change in direction,” he told attendees at a press briefing.
The findings were published online March 31 in PLOS ONE.
Silver tsunami
The investigators noted that Alzheimer’s disease is often diagnosed when the disease is in its later stages, after irreversible brain damage has occurred. “There is currently no cure for the disease, and the treatment is limited to drugs that attempt to treat symptoms and have little effect on the disease’s progression,” they noted.
Coinvestigator Khaled Imam, MD, director of geriatric medicine for Beaumont Health in Michigan, pointed out that although MRI and lumbar puncture can identify Alzheimer’s disease early on, the processes are expensive and/or invasive.
“Having biomarkers in the blood ... and being able to identify [Alzheimer’s disease] years before symptoms start, hopefully we’d be able to intervene early on in the process of the disease,” Dr. Imam said.
It is estimated that the number of Americans aged 85 and older will triple by 2050. This impending “silver tsunami,” which will come with a commensurate increase in Alzheimer’s disease cases, makes it even more important to be able to diagnose the disease early on, he noted.
The study included 24 individuals with late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (70.8% women; mean age, 83 years); 24 were deemed to be “cognitively healthy” (66.7% women; mean age, 80 years). About 500 ng of genomic DNA was extracted from whole-blood samples from each participant.
The researchers used the Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip array, and the samples were then examined for markers of methylation that would “indicate the disease process has started,” they noted.
In addition to Deep Learning, the five other AI platforms were the Support Vector Machine, Generalized Linear Model, Prediction Analysis for Microarrays, Random Forest, and Linear Discriminant Analysis.
These platforms were used to assess leukocyte genome changes. To predict Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers also used Ingenuity Pathway Analysis.
Significant “chemical changes”
Results showed that the Alzheimer’s disease group had 152 significantly differentially methylated CpGs in 171 genes in comparison with the non-Alzheimer’s disease group (false discovery rate P value < .05).
As a whole, using intragenic and intergenic/extragenic CpGs, the AI platforms were effective in predicting who had Alzheimer’s disease (area under the curve [AUC], ≥ 0.93). Using intragenic markers, the AUC for Deep Learning was 0.99.
“We looked at close to a million different sites, and we saw some chemical changes that we know are associated with alteration or change in gene function,” Dr. Bahado-Singh said.
Altered genes that were found in the Alzheimer’s disease group included CR1L, CTSV, S1PR1, and LTB4R – all of which “have been previously linked with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” the researchers noted. They also found the methylated genes CTSV and PRMT5, both of which have been previously associated with cardiovascular disease.
“A significant strength of our study is the novelty, i.e. the use of blood leukocytes to accurately detect Alzheimer’s disease and also for interrogating the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Bahado-Singh said that the test let them identify changes in cells in the blood, “giving us a comprehensive account not only of the fact that the brain is being affected by Alzheimer’s disease but it’s telling us what kinds of processes are going on in the brain.
“Normally you don’t have access to the brain. This gives us a simple blood test to get an ongoing reading of the course of events in the brain – and potentially tell us very early on before the onset of symptoms,” he added.
Cautiously optimistic
During the question-and-answer session following his presentation at the briefing, Dr. Bahado-Singh reiterated that they are at a very early stage in the research and were not able to make clinical recommendations at this point. However, he added, “There was evidence that DNA methylation change could likely precede the onset of abnormalities in the cells that give rise to the disease.”
Coinvestigator Stewart Graham, PhD, director of Alzheimer’s research at Beaumont Health, added that although the initial study findings led to some excitement for the team, “we have to be very conservative with what we say.”
He noted that the findings need to be replicated in a more diverse population. Still, “we’re excited at the moment and looking forward to seeing what the future results hold,” Dr. Graham said.
Dr. Bahado-Singh said that if larger studies confirm the findings and the test is viable, it would make sense to use it as a screen for individuals older than 65. He noted that because of the aging of the population, “this subset of individuals will constitute a larger and larger fraction of the population globally.”
Still early days
Commenting on the findings, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the investigators used an “interesting” diagnostic process.
“It was a unique approach to looking at and trying to understand what might be some of the biological underpinnings and using these tools and technologies to determine if they’re able to differentiate individuals with Alzheimer’s disease” from those without Alzheimer’s disease, said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved with the research.
“Ultimately, we want to know who is at greater risk, who may have some of the changing biology at the earliest time point so that we can intervene to stop the progression of the disease,” she said.
She pointed out that a number of types of biomarker tests are currently under investigation, many of which are measuring different outcomes. “And that’s what we want to see going forward. We want to have as many tools in our toolbox that allow us to accurately diagnose at that earliest time point,” Dr. Snyder said.
“At this point, [the current study] is still pretty early, so it needs to be replicated and then expanded to larger groups to really understand what they may be seeing,” she added.
Dr. Bahado-Singh, Dr. Imam, Dr. Graham, and Dr. Snyder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PLOS ONE