User login
Is Meningitis a Risk Factor for Trigeminal Neuralgia? New Data
In multivariate analysis, the odds of meningitis were threefold higher in patients admitted with trigeminal neuralgia than in matched controls without trigeminal neuralgia.
This is the first nationwide population-based study of the rare, chronic pain disorder to identify the prevalence of trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the United States and risk factors contributing to trigeminal neuralgia development.
“Our results affirm known associations between trigeminal neuralgia and comorbidities like multiple sclerosis, and they also identify meningitis as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia,” said investigator Megan Tang, BS, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.
The findings were presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 annual meeting.
Strong Clinical Risk Factors
Trigeminal neuralgia is a rare pain disorder involving neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve. Its etiology and risk factors are poorly understood. Current literature is based on limited datasets and reports inconsistent risk factors across studies.
To better understand the disorder, researchers used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes to identify trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019, and then propensity matched them 1:1 to non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions based on demographics, socioeconomic status, and Charlson comorbidity index scores.
Univariate analysis identified 136,345 trigeminal neuralgia admissions or an overall prevalence of 0.096%.
Trigeminal neuralgia admissions had lower morbidity than non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions and a higher prevalence of non-White patients, private insurance, and prolonged length of stay, Ms. Tang said.
Patients admitted for trigeminal neuralgia also had a higher prevalence of several chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and osteoarthritis; inflammatory conditions like lupus, meningitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease; and neurologic conditions including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke, and neurovascular compression disorders.
In multivariate analysis, investigators identified meningitis as a previously unknown risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; P < .001).
Other strong risk factors were neurovascular compression disorders (OR, 39.82; P < .001) and multiple sclerosis (OR, 12.41; P < .001). Non-White race (Black; OR, 1.09; Hispanic; OR, 1.23; Other; OR, 1.24) and use of Medicaid (OR, 1.07) and other insurance (OR, 1.17) were demographic risk factors for trigeminal neuralgia.
“This finding points us toward future work exploring the potential mechanisms of predictors, most notably inflammatory conditions in trigeminal neuralgia development,” Ms. Tang concluded.
She declined to comment further on the findings, noting the investigators are still finalizing the results and interpretation.
Ask About Meningitis, Fever
Commenting on the findings, Michael D. Staudt, MD, MSc, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said that many patients who present with classical trigeminal neuralgia will have a blood vessel on MRI that is pressing on the trigeminal nerve.
“Obviously, the nerve is bathed in cerebrospinal fluid. So, if there’s an inflammatory marker, inflammation, or infection that could be injuring the nerve in a way that we don’t yet understand, that could be something that could cause trigeminal neuralgia without having to see a blood vessel,” said Dr. Staudt, who was not involved in the study. “It makes sense, theoretically. Something that’s inflammatory, something that’s irritating, that’s novel.”
Currently, predictive markers include clinical history, response to classical medications such as carbamazepine, and MRI findings, Dr. Staudt noted.
“Someone shows up with symptoms and MRI, and it’s basically do they have a blood vessel or not,” he said. “Treatments are generally within the same categories, but we don’t think it’s the same sort of success rate as seeing a blood vessel.”
Further research is needed, but, in the meantime, Dr. Staudt said, “We can ask patients who show up with facial pain if they’ve ever had meningitis or some sort of fever that preceded their onset of pain.”
The study had no specific funding. Ms. Tang and coauthor Jack Y. Zhang, MS, reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Staudt reported serving as a consultant for Abbott and as a scientific adviser and consultant for Boston Scientific.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In multivariate analysis, the odds of meningitis were threefold higher in patients admitted with trigeminal neuralgia than in matched controls without trigeminal neuralgia.
This is the first nationwide population-based study of the rare, chronic pain disorder to identify the prevalence of trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the United States and risk factors contributing to trigeminal neuralgia development.
“Our results affirm known associations between trigeminal neuralgia and comorbidities like multiple sclerosis, and they also identify meningitis as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia,” said investigator Megan Tang, BS, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.
The findings were presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 annual meeting.
Strong Clinical Risk Factors
Trigeminal neuralgia is a rare pain disorder involving neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve. Its etiology and risk factors are poorly understood. Current literature is based on limited datasets and reports inconsistent risk factors across studies.
To better understand the disorder, researchers used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes to identify trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019, and then propensity matched them 1:1 to non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions based on demographics, socioeconomic status, and Charlson comorbidity index scores.
Univariate analysis identified 136,345 trigeminal neuralgia admissions or an overall prevalence of 0.096%.
Trigeminal neuralgia admissions had lower morbidity than non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions and a higher prevalence of non-White patients, private insurance, and prolonged length of stay, Ms. Tang said.
Patients admitted for trigeminal neuralgia also had a higher prevalence of several chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and osteoarthritis; inflammatory conditions like lupus, meningitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease; and neurologic conditions including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke, and neurovascular compression disorders.
In multivariate analysis, investigators identified meningitis as a previously unknown risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; P < .001).
Other strong risk factors were neurovascular compression disorders (OR, 39.82; P < .001) and multiple sclerosis (OR, 12.41; P < .001). Non-White race (Black; OR, 1.09; Hispanic; OR, 1.23; Other; OR, 1.24) and use of Medicaid (OR, 1.07) and other insurance (OR, 1.17) were demographic risk factors for trigeminal neuralgia.
“This finding points us toward future work exploring the potential mechanisms of predictors, most notably inflammatory conditions in trigeminal neuralgia development,” Ms. Tang concluded.
She declined to comment further on the findings, noting the investigators are still finalizing the results and interpretation.
Ask About Meningitis, Fever
Commenting on the findings, Michael D. Staudt, MD, MSc, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said that many patients who present with classical trigeminal neuralgia will have a blood vessel on MRI that is pressing on the trigeminal nerve.
“Obviously, the nerve is bathed in cerebrospinal fluid. So, if there’s an inflammatory marker, inflammation, or infection that could be injuring the nerve in a way that we don’t yet understand, that could be something that could cause trigeminal neuralgia without having to see a blood vessel,” said Dr. Staudt, who was not involved in the study. “It makes sense, theoretically. Something that’s inflammatory, something that’s irritating, that’s novel.”
Currently, predictive markers include clinical history, response to classical medications such as carbamazepine, and MRI findings, Dr. Staudt noted.
“Someone shows up with symptoms and MRI, and it’s basically do they have a blood vessel or not,” he said. “Treatments are generally within the same categories, but we don’t think it’s the same sort of success rate as seeing a blood vessel.”
Further research is needed, but, in the meantime, Dr. Staudt said, “We can ask patients who show up with facial pain if they’ve ever had meningitis or some sort of fever that preceded their onset of pain.”
The study had no specific funding. Ms. Tang and coauthor Jack Y. Zhang, MS, reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Staudt reported serving as a consultant for Abbott and as a scientific adviser and consultant for Boston Scientific.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In multivariate analysis, the odds of meningitis were threefold higher in patients admitted with trigeminal neuralgia than in matched controls without trigeminal neuralgia.
This is the first nationwide population-based study of the rare, chronic pain disorder to identify the prevalence of trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the United States and risk factors contributing to trigeminal neuralgia development.
“Our results affirm known associations between trigeminal neuralgia and comorbidities like multiple sclerosis, and they also identify meningitis as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia,” said investigator Megan Tang, BS, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.
The findings were presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 annual meeting.
Strong Clinical Risk Factors
Trigeminal neuralgia is a rare pain disorder involving neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve. Its etiology and risk factors are poorly understood. Current literature is based on limited datasets and reports inconsistent risk factors across studies.
To better understand the disorder, researchers used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes to identify trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019, and then propensity matched them 1:1 to non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions based on demographics, socioeconomic status, and Charlson comorbidity index scores.
Univariate analysis identified 136,345 trigeminal neuralgia admissions or an overall prevalence of 0.096%.
Trigeminal neuralgia admissions had lower morbidity than non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions and a higher prevalence of non-White patients, private insurance, and prolonged length of stay, Ms. Tang said.
Patients admitted for trigeminal neuralgia also had a higher prevalence of several chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and osteoarthritis; inflammatory conditions like lupus, meningitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease; and neurologic conditions including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke, and neurovascular compression disorders.
In multivariate analysis, investigators identified meningitis as a previously unknown risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; P < .001).
Other strong risk factors were neurovascular compression disorders (OR, 39.82; P < .001) and multiple sclerosis (OR, 12.41; P < .001). Non-White race (Black; OR, 1.09; Hispanic; OR, 1.23; Other; OR, 1.24) and use of Medicaid (OR, 1.07) and other insurance (OR, 1.17) were demographic risk factors for trigeminal neuralgia.
“This finding points us toward future work exploring the potential mechanisms of predictors, most notably inflammatory conditions in trigeminal neuralgia development,” Ms. Tang concluded.
She declined to comment further on the findings, noting the investigators are still finalizing the results and interpretation.
Ask About Meningitis, Fever
Commenting on the findings, Michael D. Staudt, MD, MSc, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said that many patients who present with classical trigeminal neuralgia will have a blood vessel on MRI that is pressing on the trigeminal nerve.
“Obviously, the nerve is bathed in cerebrospinal fluid. So, if there’s an inflammatory marker, inflammation, or infection that could be injuring the nerve in a way that we don’t yet understand, that could be something that could cause trigeminal neuralgia without having to see a blood vessel,” said Dr. Staudt, who was not involved in the study. “It makes sense, theoretically. Something that’s inflammatory, something that’s irritating, that’s novel.”
Currently, predictive markers include clinical history, response to classical medications such as carbamazepine, and MRI findings, Dr. Staudt noted.
“Someone shows up with symptoms and MRI, and it’s basically do they have a blood vessel or not,” he said. “Treatments are generally within the same categories, but we don’t think it’s the same sort of success rate as seeing a blood vessel.”
Further research is needed, but, in the meantime, Dr. Staudt said, “We can ask patients who show up with facial pain if they’ve ever had meningitis or some sort of fever that preceded their onset of pain.”
The study had no specific funding. Ms. Tang and coauthor Jack Y. Zhang, MS, reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Staudt reported serving as a consultant for Abbott and as a scientific adviser and consultant for Boston Scientific.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AANS 2024
Multidisciplinary Team Develops New Guidelines for Sjögren-Related Neuropathy
New guidelines to manage peripheral neuropathy related to Sjögren disease have been developed by a multidisciplinary team of physicians from across medicine.
The guidelines will provide an evidence-based resource for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of various peripheral neuropathies related to the disorder.
Up until now, the field has been “haphazard and chaotic,” lead author George Sarka, MD, DrPH, MPH, director of the CME Committee for MemorialCare, Saddleback Medical Center, Laguna Hills, California, and member of the Sjögren Foundation PNS Guidelines Topic Review Group (TRG), told this news organization.
Dr. Sarka discussed the initiative at the American Academy of Neurology 2024 annual meeting.
Severe, Complex Illness
Sjögren disease is the second most common autoimmune rheumatic disorder after rheumatoid arthritis, affecting an estimated 4 million Americans. Women make up most of the patient population at a ratio of 9:1.
The condition typically affects the mucous membranes and moisture-secreting glands of the eyes and mouth, resulting in decreased tears and saliva. But peripheral nervous system (PNS) manifestations often precede these symptoms and can occur in up to 60% of Sjögren disease cases.
“Traditionally, Sjögren’s was looked at as a dry eye and dry mouth disease, but we realize now that it’s so much broader than that,” said Dr. Sarka. “It’s a severe, systemic, and complex illness that can affect any body organ or system, and the nervous system is frequently affected.”
PNS manifestations cause more than mere discomfort; they can lead to diagnostic and management challenges, costly treatments, and diminished quality of life.
Getting a proper diagnosis goes a long way toward improving the quality of life for these patients, Steven Mandel, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell, adjunct clinical professor of medicine at NY Medical College, New York City, and member of the TRG, told this news organization.
The problem is, doctors don’t always think an autoimmune disorder is causing the symptoms, said Dr. Sarka. “There’s an old adage in neurology that if you don’t think about it, you’re going to miss it; you have to ask, and that’s what we’re trying to get people to do.”
The condition often accompanies other immune system disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. But as patients are referred back and forth between ophthalmologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists, the condition is often missed. “It could be 4 or 5 years before a definitive diagnosis of Sjögren’s is made,” said Dr. Sarka.
He believes the education system is partly to blame. “Medical schools have been very deficient in teaching people about recognizing Sjögren disease.”
That leaves many physicians at a loss about “what to do with these patients when they walk in the door,” said Dr. Mandel. “They don’t know how to manage them; they don’t know how to diagnose them; and they don’t know how to treat them.”
Developing guidelines with multispecialty collaboration was “absolutely critical” in addressing this knowledge gap, Dr. Mandel added. That process involved “a very rigorous and transparent methodology so that it would be accepted by all the professionals involved in Sjögren’s,” he said.
The process took 3 years and involved amassing and grading the evidence, getting consensus from committee members, developing recommendations, and getting feedback and external review.
Scant Evidence
An early literature search revealed very little evidence on PNS manifestations in patients with Sjögren disease, so the guideline committee “leaned very heavily on expert opinion” to develop recommendations, Kathy Hammitt, MA, vice president of Medical and Scientific Affairs, Sjögren’s Foundation, told this news organization.
The literature search also showed different terms are used to describe PNS, “which is where the chaos comes in,” said Dr. Sarka.
Experts from different specialties worked together to define and align nomenclature used by various specialists. They developed definitions for seven PNS categories including mononeuropathy, large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, ganglionopathy, vasculitis neuropathy, and autoimmune nervous system neuropathy.
The guidelines pertaining to PNS manifestations encompass a spectrum of neurologic abnormalities, including cranial neuropathies (trigeminal neuropathy or acute facial neuropathy), polyneuropathies (large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, vasculitis neuropathy, or ganglionopathy), and autonomic nervous system (ANS) neuropathies (postural tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, or autonomic dysfunction).
Key Steps
The guidelines address two key steps for each PNS manifestation — the workup and evaluation of patients with suspected ANS manifestation including standard evaluations, diagnostic tests, and treatment. The experts developed 31 best practices for diagnosis and workup and 20 treatment recommendations.
Initial assessment of potential ANS involvement includes asking patients about orthostatic postural lightheadedness and difficulties with digestion, urination, sweating, and sexual function.
Treatment of autoimmune diseases typically focuses on relieving symptoms and can include steroids, the anticonvulsant gabapentin, the monoclonal antibody rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin. “The type of neuropathy will mandate or suggest certain therapies over others,” said Dr. Sarka, adding that a patient can have more than one neuropathy.
Therapeutics for Sjögren disease is another example of an area that has been “very haphazard,” he added.
The guidelines are aimed not just at specialists but also at general practitioners who treat many of these patients. But Dr. Hammitt emphasized that neurologists can be “instrumental” in identifying Sjögren disease in patients with PNS symptoms.
“Our hope is that specialists — in this case, neurologists — will recognize the potential for this condition in their PNS patients and ensure referral to a rheumatologist or knowledgeable family practitioner to manage overall care.”
The committee will soon submit its manuscript to the AAN for publication.
“Once published, we will have a robust dissemination strategy to ensure that providers, patients, and policymakers are aware of, and use, this very valuable resource,” said Dr. Hammitt.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New guidelines to manage peripheral neuropathy related to Sjögren disease have been developed by a multidisciplinary team of physicians from across medicine.
The guidelines will provide an evidence-based resource for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of various peripheral neuropathies related to the disorder.
Up until now, the field has been “haphazard and chaotic,” lead author George Sarka, MD, DrPH, MPH, director of the CME Committee for MemorialCare, Saddleback Medical Center, Laguna Hills, California, and member of the Sjögren Foundation PNS Guidelines Topic Review Group (TRG), told this news organization.
Dr. Sarka discussed the initiative at the American Academy of Neurology 2024 annual meeting.
Severe, Complex Illness
Sjögren disease is the second most common autoimmune rheumatic disorder after rheumatoid arthritis, affecting an estimated 4 million Americans. Women make up most of the patient population at a ratio of 9:1.
The condition typically affects the mucous membranes and moisture-secreting glands of the eyes and mouth, resulting in decreased tears and saliva. But peripheral nervous system (PNS) manifestations often precede these symptoms and can occur in up to 60% of Sjögren disease cases.
“Traditionally, Sjögren’s was looked at as a dry eye and dry mouth disease, but we realize now that it’s so much broader than that,” said Dr. Sarka. “It’s a severe, systemic, and complex illness that can affect any body organ or system, and the nervous system is frequently affected.”
PNS manifestations cause more than mere discomfort; they can lead to diagnostic and management challenges, costly treatments, and diminished quality of life.
Getting a proper diagnosis goes a long way toward improving the quality of life for these patients, Steven Mandel, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell, adjunct clinical professor of medicine at NY Medical College, New York City, and member of the TRG, told this news organization.
The problem is, doctors don’t always think an autoimmune disorder is causing the symptoms, said Dr. Sarka. “There’s an old adage in neurology that if you don’t think about it, you’re going to miss it; you have to ask, and that’s what we’re trying to get people to do.”
The condition often accompanies other immune system disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. But as patients are referred back and forth between ophthalmologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists, the condition is often missed. “It could be 4 or 5 years before a definitive diagnosis of Sjögren’s is made,” said Dr. Sarka.
He believes the education system is partly to blame. “Medical schools have been very deficient in teaching people about recognizing Sjögren disease.”
That leaves many physicians at a loss about “what to do with these patients when they walk in the door,” said Dr. Mandel. “They don’t know how to manage them; they don’t know how to diagnose them; and they don’t know how to treat them.”
Developing guidelines with multispecialty collaboration was “absolutely critical” in addressing this knowledge gap, Dr. Mandel added. That process involved “a very rigorous and transparent methodology so that it would be accepted by all the professionals involved in Sjögren’s,” he said.
The process took 3 years and involved amassing and grading the evidence, getting consensus from committee members, developing recommendations, and getting feedback and external review.
Scant Evidence
An early literature search revealed very little evidence on PNS manifestations in patients with Sjögren disease, so the guideline committee “leaned very heavily on expert opinion” to develop recommendations, Kathy Hammitt, MA, vice president of Medical and Scientific Affairs, Sjögren’s Foundation, told this news organization.
The literature search also showed different terms are used to describe PNS, “which is where the chaos comes in,” said Dr. Sarka.
Experts from different specialties worked together to define and align nomenclature used by various specialists. They developed definitions for seven PNS categories including mononeuropathy, large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, ganglionopathy, vasculitis neuropathy, and autoimmune nervous system neuropathy.
The guidelines pertaining to PNS manifestations encompass a spectrum of neurologic abnormalities, including cranial neuropathies (trigeminal neuropathy or acute facial neuropathy), polyneuropathies (large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, vasculitis neuropathy, or ganglionopathy), and autonomic nervous system (ANS) neuropathies (postural tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, or autonomic dysfunction).
Key Steps
The guidelines address two key steps for each PNS manifestation — the workup and evaluation of patients with suspected ANS manifestation including standard evaluations, diagnostic tests, and treatment. The experts developed 31 best practices for diagnosis and workup and 20 treatment recommendations.
Initial assessment of potential ANS involvement includes asking patients about orthostatic postural lightheadedness and difficulties with digestion, urination, sweating, and sexual function.
Treatment of autoimmune diseases typically focuses on relieving symptoms and can include steroids, the anticonvulsant gabapentin, the monoclonal antibody rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin. “The type of neuropathy will mandate or suggest certain therapies over others,” said Dr. Sarka, adding that a patient can have more than one neuropathy.
Therapeutics for Sjögren disease is another example of an area that has been “very haphazard,” he added.
The guidelines are aimed not just at specialists but also at general practitioners who treat many of these patients. But Dr. Hammitt emphasized that neurologists can be “instrumental” in identifying Sjögren disease in patients with PNS symptoms.
“Our hope is that specialists — in this case, neurologists — will recognize the potential for this condition in their PNS patients and ensure referral to a rheumatologist or knowledgeable family practitioner to manage overall care.”
The committee will soon submit its manuscript to the AAN for publication.
“Once published, we will have a robust dissemination strategy to ensure that providers, patients, and policymakers are aware of, and use, this very valuable resource,” said Dr. Hammitt.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New guidelines to manage peripheral neuropathy related to Sjögren disease have been developed by a multidisciplinary team of physicians from across medicine.
The guidelines will provide an evidence-based resource for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of various peripheral neuropathies related to the disorder.
Up until now, the field has been “haphazard and chaotic,” lead author George Sarka, MD, DrPH, MPH, director of the CME Committee for MemorialCare, Saddleback Medical Center, Laguna Hills, California, and member of the Sjögren Foundation PNS Guidelines Topic Review Group (TRG), told this news organization.
Dr. Sarka discussed the initiative at the American Academy of Neurology 2024 annual meeting.
Severe, Complex Illness
Sjögren disease is the second most common autoimmune rheumatic disorder after rheumatoid arthritis, affecting an estimated 4 million Americans. Women make up most of the patient population at a ratio of 9:1.
The condition typically affects the mucous membranes and moisture-secreting glands of the eyes and mouth, resulting in decreased tears and saliva. But peripheral nervous system (PNS) manifestations often precede these symptoms and can occur in up to 60% of Sjögren disease cases.
“Traditionally, Sjögren’s was looked at as a dry eye and dry mouth disease, but we realize now that it’s so much broader than that,” said Dr. Sarka. “It’s a severe, systemic, and complex illness that can affect any body organ or system, and the nervous system is frequently affected.”
PNS manifestations cause more than mere discomfort; they can lead to diagnostic and management challenges, costly treatments, and diminished quality of life.
Getting a proper diagnosis goes a long way toward improving the quality of life for these patients, Steven Mandel, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell, adjunct clinical professor of medicine at NY Medical College, New York City, and member of the TRG, told this news organization.
The problem is, doctors don’t always think an autoimmune disorder is causing the symptoms, said Dr. Sarka. “There’s an old adage in neurology that if you don’t think about it, you’re going to miss it; you have to ask, and that’s what we’re trying to get people to do.”
The condition often accompanies other immune system disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. But as patients are referred back and forth between ophthalmologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists, the condition is often missed. “It could be 4 or 5 years before a definitive diagnosis of Sjögren’s is made,” said Dr. Sarka.
He believes the education system is partly to blame. “Medical schools have been very deficient in teaching people about recognizing Sjögren disease.”
That leaves many physicians at a loss about “what to do with these patients when they walk in the door,” said Dr. Mandel. “They don’t know how to manage them; they don’t know how to diagnose them; and they don’t know how to treat them.”
Developing guidelines with multispecialty collaboration was “absolutely critical” in addressing this knowledge gap, Dr. Mandel added. That process involved “a very rigorous and transparent methodology so that it would be accepted by all the professionals involved in Sjögren’s,” he said.
The process took 3 years and involved amassing and grading the evidence, getting consensus from committee members, developing recommendations, and getting feedback and external review.
Scant Evidence
An early literature search revealed very little evidence on PNS manifestations in patients with Sjögren disease, so the guideline committee “leaned very heavily on expert opinion” to develop recommendations, Kathy Hammitt, MA, vice president of Medical and Scientific Affairs, Sjögren’s Foundation, told this news organization.
The literature search also showed different terms are used to describe PNS, “which is where the chaos comes in,” said Dr. Sarka.
Experts from different specialties worked together to define and align nomenclature used by various specialists. They developed definitions for seven PNS categories including mononeuropathy, large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, ganglionopathy, vasculitis neuropathy, and autoimmune nervous system neuropathy.
The guidelines pertaining to PNS manifestations encompass a spectrum of neurologic abnormalities, including cranial neuropathies (trigeminal neuropathy or acute facial neuropathy), polyneuropathies (large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, vasculitis neuropathy, or ganglionopathy), and autonomic nervous system (ANS) neuropathies (postural tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, or autonomic dysfunction).
Key Steps
The guidelines address two key steps for each PNS manifestation — the workup and evaluation of patients with suspected ANS manifestation including standard evaluations, diagnostic tests, and treatment. The experts developed 31 best practices for diagnosis and workup and 20 treatment recommendations.
Initial assessment of potential ANS involvement includes asking patients about orthostatic postural lightheadedness and difficulties with digestion, urination, sweating, and sexual function.
Treatment of autoimmune diseases typically focuses on relieving symptoms and can include steroids, the anticonvulsant gabapentin, the monoclonal antibody rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin. “The type of neuropathy will mandate or suggest certain therapies over others,” said Dr. Sarka, adding that a patient can have more than one neuropathy.
Therapeutics for Sjögren disease is another example of an area that has been “very haphazard,” he added.
The guidelines are aimed not just at specialists but also at general practitioners who treat many of these patients. But Dr. Hammitt emphasized that neurologists can be “instrumental” in identifying Sjögren disease in patients with PNS symptoms.
“Our hope is that specialists — in this case, neurologists — will recognize the potential for this condition in their PNS patients and ensure referral to a rheumatologist or knowledgeable family practitioner to manage overall care.”
The committee will soon submit its manuscript to the AAN for publication.
“Once published, we will have a robust dissemination strategy to ensure that providers, patients, and policymakers are aware of, and use, this very valuable resource,” said Dr. Hammitt.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
Hereditary Amyloidosis: 5 Things to Know
Amyloidosis is a condition marked by the accumulation of insoluble beta-sheet fibrillar protein aggregates in tissues that can be acquired or hereditary. Hereditary amyloidogenic transthyretin (hATTR) amyloidosis is an autosomal-dominant disease caused by pathogenic variants in the TTR gene. The TTR protein is essential for transporting thyroxine and retinol-binding protein and is primarily synthesized in the liver, becoming unstable as a result of the pathogenic mutations. Inherited pathogenic variants lead to the protein’s misfolding, aggregation, and deposition as amyloid fibrils in different organs, resulting in progressive multisystem dysfunction. hATTR amyloidosis is a heterogenous disease, characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations affecting the peripheral (both somatic and autonomic) nervous system, heart, kidneys, and central nervous system (CNS); however, the heart and peripheral nerves appear to be the main targets of the TTR-related pathologic process. Without treatment, the prognosis is poor, with an average life expectancy of 7-11 years; however, in recent years, the development of new therapeutics has brought new hope to patients.
Here are five things to know about hereditary amyloidosis.
1. Diagnosis of hereditary amyloidosis requires a high level of suspicion.
The diagnosis of hATTR amyloidosis presents a significant challenge, particularly in nonendemic regions where a lack of family history and heterogeneity of clinical presentation can delay diagnosis by 4-5 years. A timely diagnosis requires clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion, especially when evaluating patients with neuropathic symptoms. Early diagnosis is crucial to begin patients on recently available disease-modifying therapies that can slow the disease course. Failure to recognize is the major barrier to improved patient outcomes.
Confirming the diagnosis involves detecting amyloid deposits in tissue biopsy specimens from various possible sites, including the skin, nerves, myocardium, and others. However, the diagnosis can be challenging owing to the uneven distribution of amyloid fibrils, sometimes requiring multiple biopsies or alternative diagnostic approaches, such as TTR gene sequencing, to confirm the presence of an amyloidogenic pathogenic variant. Biopsy for hATTR amyloidosis is not required if imaging of the clinical phenotype and genetic testing are consistent.
Once diagnosed, the assessment of organ involvement is essential, using nerve conduction studies, cardiac investigations (eg, echocardiography, ECG, scintigraphy), ophthalmologic assessments, and complete renal function evaluations to fully understand the extent of disease impact.
2. Hereditary amyloidosis diseases are classified into two primary categories.
Hereditary amyloidosis represents a group of diseases caused by inherited gene mutations and is classified into two main types: ATTR (transthyretin-related) and non-TTR. Most cases of hereditary amyloidosis are associated with the TTR gene. Mutations in this protein lead to different forms of ATTR amyloidosis, categorized on the basis of the specific mutation involved, such as hATTR50M (genotype Val50Met), which is the most prevalent form.
ATTR mutations result in a variety of health issues, manifesting in three primary forms:
- Neuropathic ATTR (genotype Val50Met): Early symptoms include sensorimotor polyneuropathy of the legs, carpal tunnel syndrome, autonomic dysfunction, constipation/diarrhea, and impotence; late symptoms include cardiomyopathy, vitreous opacities, glaucoma, nephropathy, and CNS symptoms.
- Cardiac ATTR (genotype Val142Ile): This type is characterized by cardiomegaly, conduction block, arrhythmia, anginal pain, congestive heart failure, and sudden death.
- Leptomeningeal ATTR (genotype Asp38Gly): This is characterized by transient focal neurologic episodes, intracerebral and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages, dementia, ataxia, and psychosis.
Non-TTR amyloidoses are rarer than are ATTR variations and involve mutations in different genes that also have significant health impacts. These include proteins such as apolipoprotein AI, fibrinogen A alpha, lysozyme, apolipoprotein AII, gelsolin, and cystatin C. Each type contributes to a range of symptoms and requires individualized management approaches.
3. Heightened disease awareness has increased the recognized prevalence of hereditary amyloidosis.
hATTR amyloidosis has historically been recognized as a rare disease, with significant clusters in Portugal, Brazil, Sweden, and Japan and alongside smaller foci in regions such as Cyprus and Majorca. This disease›s variable incidence across Europe is now perceived to be on the rise. It is attributed to heightened disease awareness among healthcare providers and the broader availability of genetic testing, extending its recognized impact to at least 29 countries globally. The genetic landscape of hATTR amyloidosis is diverse, with over 140 mutations identified in the TTR gene. Among these, the Val50Met mutation is particularly notable for its association with large patient clusters in the endemic regions.
Morbidity and mortality associated with hATTR amyloidosis are significant, with an average lifespan of 7-11 years post diagnosis; however, survival rates can vary widely depending on the specific genetic variant and organ involvement. Early diagnosis can substantially improve outcomes; yet, for many, the prognosis remains poor, especially in cases dominated by cardiomyopathy. Genetics play a central role in the disease›s transmission, with autosomal-dominant inheritance patterns and high penetrance among carriers of pathogenic mutations. Research continues to uncover the broad spectrum of genetic variations contributing to hATTR amyloidosis, with ongoing studies poised to expand our understanding of its molecular underpinnings and potential treatment options.
4. The effect on quality of life is significant both in patients living with hATTR amyloidosis and their caregivers.
hATTR amyloidosis imposes a multifaceted burden on patients and their caregivers as the disease progresses. Symptoms range from sensorimotor impairment and gastrointestinal or autonomic dysfunction to heart failure, leading to significant health-related quality-of-life deficits. The systemic nature of hATTR amyloidosis significantly affects patients› lifestyles, daily activities, and general well-being, especially because it typically manifests in adulthood — a crucial time for occupational changes. The progression of hATTR amyloidosis exacerbates the challenges in maintaining employment and managing household chores, with symptomatic patients often unable to work and experiencing difficulties with absenteeism and presenteeism when they are able to work.
hATTR amyloidosis leads to physical, mental, occupational, and social limitations for patients, and it also places a considerable strain on their families and caregivers, who report poor mental health, work impairment, and a high time commitment (mean, 45.9 h/wk) to providing care.
5. There have been significant advancements in therapeutic options for early-stage hATTR amyloidosis.
After diagnosis, prompt initiation of treatment is recommended to delay the progression of hATTR amyloidosis; a multidisciplinary approach is essential, incorporating anti-amyloid therapy to inhibit further production and/or deposition of amyloid aggregates. Treatment strategies also include addressing symptomatic therapy and managing cardiac, renal, and ocular involvement. Although many therapies have been developed, especially for the early stages of hATTR amyloidosis, therapeutic benefits for patients with advanced disease remain limited.
Recent advancements in the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis have introduced RNA-targeted therapies including patisiran, vutrisiran, and eplontersen, which have shown efficacy in reducing hepatic TTR synthesis and the aggregation of misfolded monomers into amyloid deposits. These therapies, ranging from small interfering RNA formulations to antisense oligonucleotides, offer benefits in managing both cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with hATTR amyloidosis , administered through various methods, including intravenous infusions and subcutaneous injections. In addition, the stabilization of TTR tetramers with the use of drugs such as tafamidis and diflunisal has effectively prevented the formation of amyloidogenic monomers. Moreover, other investigational agents, including TTR stabilizers like acoramidis and tolcapone, as well as novel compounds that inhibit amyloid formation and disrupt fibrils, are expanding the therapeutic landscape for hATTR amyloidosis , providing hope for improved management of this complex condition.
Dr. Gertz is a professor and consultant in the Department of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Ionis, and Alnylym.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Amyloidosis is a condition marked by the accumulation of insoluble beta-sheet fibrillar protein aggregates in tissues that can be acquired or hereditary. Hereditary amyloidogenic transthyretin (hATTR) amyloidosis is an autosomal-dominant disease caused by pathogenic variants in the TTR gene. The TTR protein is essential for transporting thyroxine and retinol-binding protein and is primarily synthesized in the liver, becoming unstable as a result of the pathogenic mutations. Inherited pathogenic variants lead to the protein’s misfolding, aggregation, and deposition as amyloid fibrils in different organs, resulting in progressive multisystem dysfunction. hATTR amyloidosis is a heterogenous disease, characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations affecting the peripheral (both somatic and autonomic) nervous system, heart, kidneys, and central nervous system (CNS); however, the heart and peripheral nerves appear to be the main targets of the TTR-related pathologic process. Without treatment, the prognosis is poor, with an average life expectancy of 7-11 years; however, in recent years, the development of new therapeutics has brought new hope to patients.
Here are five things to know about hereditary amyloidosis.
1. Diagnosis of hereditary amyloidosis requires a high level of suspicion.
The diagnosis of hATTR amyloidosis presents a significant challenge, particularly in nonendemic regions where a lack of family history and heterogeneity of clinical presentation can delay diagnosis by 4-5 years. A timely diagnosis requires clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion, especially when evaluating patients with neuropathic symptoms. Early diagnosis is crucial to begin patients on recently available disease-modifying therapies that can slow the disease course. Failure to recognize is the major barrier to improved patient outcomes.
Confirming the diagnosis involves detecting amyloid deposits in tissue biopsy specimens from various possible sites, including the skin, nerves, myocardium, and others. However, the diagnosis can be challenging owing to the uneven distribution of amyloid fibrils, sometimes requiring multiple biopsies or alternative diagnostic approaches, such as TTR gene sequencing, to confirm the presence of an amyloidogenic pathogenic variant. Biopsy for hATTR amyloidosis is not required if imaging of the clinical phenotype and genetic testing are consistent.
Once diagnosed, the assessment of organ involvement is essential, using nerve conduction studies, cardiac investigations (eg, echocardiography, ECG, scintigraphy), ophthalmologic assessments, and complete renal function evaluations to fully understand the extent of disease impact.
2. Hereditary amyloidosis diseases are classified into two primary categories.
Hereditary amyloidosis represents a group of diseases caused by inherited gene mutations and is classified into two main types: ATTR (transthyretin-related) and non-TTR. Most cases of hereditary amyloidosis are associated with the TTR gene. Mutations in this protein lead to different forms of ATTR amyloidosis, categorized on the basis of the specific mutation involved, such as hATTR50M (genotype Val50Met), which is the most prevalent form.
ATTR mutations result in a variety of health issues, manifesting in three primary forms:
- Neuropathic ATTR (genotype Val50Met): Early symptoms include sensorimotor polyneuropathy of the legs, carpal tunnel syndrome, autonomic dysfunction, constipation/diarrhea, and impotence; late symptoms include cardiomyopathy, vitreous opacities, glaucoma, nephropathy, and CNS symptoms.
- Cardiac ATTR (genotype Val142Ile): This type is characterized by cardiomegaly, conduction block, arrhythmia, anginal pain, congestive heart failure, and sudden death.
- Leptomeningeal ATTR (genotype Asp38Gly): This is characterized by transient focal neurologic episodes, intracerebral and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages, dementia, ataxia, and psychosis.
Non-TTR amyloidoses are rarer than are ATTR variations and involve mutations in different genes that also have significant health impacts. These include proteins such as apolipoprotein AI, fibrinogen A alpha, lysozyme, apolipoprotein AII, gelsolin, and cystatin C. Each type contributes to a range of symptoms and requires individualized management approaches.
3. Heightened disease awareness has increased the recognized prevalence of hereditary amyloidosis.
hATTR amyloidosis has historically been recognized as a rare disease, with significant clusters in Portugal, Brazil, Sweden, and Japan and alongside smaller foci in regions such as Cyprus and Majorca. This disease›s variable incidence across Europe is now perceived to be on the rise. It is attributed to heightened disease awareness among healthcare providers and the broader availability of genetic testing, extending its recognized impact to at least 29 countries globally. The genetic landscape of hATTR amyloidosis is diverse, with over 140 mutations identified in the TTR gene. Among these, the Val50Met mutation is particularly notable for its association with large patient clusters in the endemic regions.
Morbidity and mortality associated with hATTR amyloidosis are significant, with an average lifespan of 7-11 years post diagnosis; however, survival rates can vary widely depending on the specific genetic variant and organ involvement. Early diagnosis can substantially improve outcomes; yet, for many, the prognosis remains poor, especially in cases dominated by cardiomyopathy. Genetics play a central role in the disease›s transmission, with autosomal-dominant inheritance patterns and high penetrance among carriers of pathogenic mutations. Research continues to uncover the broad spectrum of genetic variations contributing to hATTR amyloidosis, with ongoing studies poised to expand our understanding of its molecular underpinnings and potential treatment options.
4. The effect on quality of life is significant both in patients living with hATTR amyloidosis and their caregivers.
hATTR amyloidosis imposes a multifaceted burden on patients and their caregivers as the disease progresses. Symptoms range from sensorimotor impairment and gastrointestinal or autonomic dysfunction to heart failure, leading to significant health-related quality-of-life deficits. The systemic nature of hATTR amyloidosis significantly affects patients› lifestyles, daily activities, and general well-being, especially because it typically manifests in adulthood — a crucial time for occupational changes. The progression of hATTR amyloidosis exacerbates the challenges in maintaining employment and managing household chores, with symptomatic patients often unable to work and experiencing difficulties with absenteeism and presenteeism when they are able to work.
hATTR amyloidosis leads to physical, mental, occupational, and social limitations for patients, and it also places a considerable strain on their families and caregivers, who report poor mental health, work impairment, and a high time commitment (mean, 45.9 h/wk) to providing care.
5. There have been significant advancements in therapeutic options for early-stage hATTR amyloidosis.
After diagnosis, prompt initiation of treatment is recommended to delay the progression of hATTR amyloidosis; a multidisciplinary approach is essential, incorporating anti-amyloid therapy to inhibit further production and/or deposition of amyloid aggregates. Treatment strategies also include addressing symptomatic therapy and managing cardiac, renal, and ocular involvement. Although many therapies have been developed, especially for the early stages of hATTR amyloidosis, therapeutic benefits for patients with advanced disease remain limited.
Recent advancements in the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis have introduced RNA-targeted therapies including patisiran, vutrisiran, and eplontersen, which have shown efficacy in reducing hepatic TTR synthesis and the aggregation of misfolded monomers into amyloid deposits. These therapies, ranging from small interfering RNA formulations to antisense oligonucleotides, offer benefits in managing both cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with hATTR amyloidosis , administered through various methods, including intravenous infusions and subcutaneous injections. In addition, the stabilization of TTR tetramers with the use of drugs such as tafamidis and diflunisal has effectively prevented the formation of amyloidogenic monomers. Moreover, other investigational agents, including TTR stabilizers like acoramidis and tolcapone, as well as novel compounds that inhibit amyloid formation and disrupt fibrils, are expanding the therapeutic landscape for hATTR amyloidosis , providing hope for improved management of this complex condition.
Dr. Gertz is a professor and consultant in the Department of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Ionis, and Alnylym.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Amyloidosis is a condition marked by the accumulation of insoluble beta-sheet fibrillar protein aggregates in tissues that can be acquired or hereditary. Hereditary amyloidogenic transthyretin (hATTR) amyloidosis is an autosomal-dominant disease caused by pathogenic variants in the TTR gene. The TTR protein is essential for transporting thyroxine and retinol-binding protein and is primarily synthesized in the liver, becoming unstable as a result of the pathogenic mutations. Inherited pathogenic variants lead to the protein’s misfolding, aggregation, and deposition as amyloid fibrils in different organs, resulting in progressive multisystem dysfunction. hATTR amyloidosis is a heterogenous disease, characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations affecting the peripheral (both somatic and autonomic) nervous system, heart, kidneys, and central nervous system (CNS); however, the heart and peripheral nerves appear to be the main targets of the TTR-related pathologic process. Without treatment, the prognosis is poor, with an average life expectancy of 7-11 years; however, in recent years, the development of new therapeutics has brought new hope to patients.
Here are five things to know about hereditary amyloidosis.
1. Diagnosis of hereditary amyloidosis requires a high level of suspicion.
The diagnosis of hATTR amyloidosis presents a significant challenge, particularly in nonendemic regions where a lack of family history and heterogeneity of clinical presentation can delay diagnosis by 4-5 years. A timely diagnosis requires clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion, especially when evaluating patients with neuropathic symptoms. Early diagnosis is crucial to begin patients on recently available disease-modifying therapies that can slow the disease course. Failure to recognize is the major barrier to improved patient outcomes.
Confirming the diagnosis involves detecting amyloid deposits in tissue biopsy specimens from various possible sites, including the skin, nerves, myocardium, and others. However, the diagnosis can be challenging owing to the uneven distribution of amyloid fibrils, sometimes requiring multiple biopsies or alternative diagnostic approaches, such as TTR gene sequencing, to confirm the presence of an amyloidogenic pathogenic variant. Biopsy for hATTR amyloidosis is not required if imaging of the clinical phenotype and genetic testing are consistent.
Once diagnosed, the assessment of organ involvement is essential, using nerve conduction studies, cardiac investigations (eg, echocardiography, ECG, scintigraphy), ophthalmologic assessments, and complete renal function evaluations to fully understand the extent of disease impact.
2. Hereditary amyloidosis diseases are classified into two primary categories.
Hereditary amyloidosis represents a group of diseases caused by inherited gene mutations and is classified into two main types: ATTR (transthyretin-related) and non-TTR. Most cases of hereditary amyloidosis are associated with the TTR gene. Mutations in this protein lead to different forms of ATTR amyloidosis, categorized on the basis of the specific mutation involved, such as hATTR50M (genotype Val50Met), which is the most prevalent form.
ATTR mutations result in a variety of health issues, manifesting in three primary forms:
- Neuropathic ATTR (genotype Val50Met): Early symptoms include sensorimotor polyneuropathy of the legs, carpal tunnel syndrome, autonomic dysfunction, constipation/diarrhea, and impotence; late symptoms include cardiomyopathy, vitreous opacities, glaucoma, nephropathy, and CNS symptoms.
- Cardiac ATTR (genotype Val142Ile): This type is characterized by cardiomegaly, conduction block, arrhythmia, anginal pain, congestive heart failure, and sudden death.
- Leptomeningeal ATTR (genotype Asp38Gly): This is characterized by transient focal neurologic episodes, intracerebral and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages, dementia, ataxia, and psychosis.
Non-TTR amyloidoses are rarer than are ATTR variations and involve mutations in different genes that also have significant health impacts. These include proteins such as apolipoprotein AI, fibrinogen A alpha, lysozyme, apolipoprotein AII, gelsolin, and cystatin C. Each type contributes to a range of symptoms and requires individualized management approaches.
3. Heightened disease awareness has increased the recognized prevalence of hereditary amyloidosis.
hATTR amyloidosis has historically been recognized as a rare disease, with significant clusters in Portugal, Brazil, Sweden, and Japan and alongside smaller foci in regions such as Cyprus and Majorca. This disease›s variable incidence across Europe is now perceived to be on the rise. It is attributed to heightened disease awareness among healthcare providers and the broader availability of genetic testing, extending its recognized impact to at least 29 countries globally. The genetic landscape of hATTR amyloidosis is diverse, with over 140 mutations identified in the TTR gene. Among these, the Val50Met mutation is particularly notable for its association with large patient clusters in the endemic regions.
Morbidity and mortality associated with hATTR amyloidosis are significant, with an average lifespan of 7-11 years post diagnosis; however, survival rates can vary widely depending on the specific genetic variant and organ involvement. Early diagnosis can substantially improve outcomes; yet, for many, the prognosis remains poor, especially in cases dominated by cardiomyopathy. Genetics play a central role in the disease›s transmission, with autosomal-dominant inheritance patterns and high penetrance among carriers of pathogenic mutations. Research continues to uncover the broad spectrum of genetic variations contributing to hATTR amyloidosis, with ongoing studies poised to expand our understanding of its molecular underpinnings and potential treatment options.
4. The effect on quality of life is significant both in patients living with hATTR amyloidosis and their caregivers.
hATTR amyloidosis imposes a multifaceted burden on patients and their caregivers as the disease progresses. Symptoms range from sensorimotor impairment and gastrointestinal or autonomic dysfunction to heart failure, leading to significant health-related quality-of-life deficits. The systemic nature of hATTR amyloidosis significantly affects patients› lifestyles, daily activities, and general well-being, especially because it typically manifests in adulthood — a crucial time for occupational changes. The progression of hATTR amyloidosis exacerbates the challenges in maintaining employment and managing household chores, with symptomatic patients often unable to work and experiencing difficulties with absenteeism and presenteeism when they are able to work.
hATTR amyloidosis leads to physical, mental, occupational, and social limitations for patients, and it also places a considerable strain on their families and caregivers, who report poor mental health, work impairment, and a high time commitment (mean, 45.9 h/wk) to providing care.
5. There have been significant advancements in therapeutic options for early-stage hATTR amyloidosis.
After diagnosis, prompt initiation of treatment is recommended to delay the progression of hATTR amyloidosis; a multidisciplinary approach is essential, incorporating anti-amyloid therapy to inhibit further production and/or deposition of amyloid aggregates. Treatment strategies also include addressing symptomatic therapy and managing cardiac, renal, and ocular involvement. Although many therapies have been developed, especially for the early stages of hATTR amyloidosis, therapeutic benefits for patients with advanced disease remain limited.
Recent advancements in the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis have introduced RNA-targeted therapies including patisiran, vutrisiran, and eplontersen, which have shown efficacy in reducing hepatic TTR synthesis and the aggregation of misfolded monomers into amyloid deposits. These therapies, ranging from small interfering RNA formulations to antisense oligonucleotides, offer benefits in managing both cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with hATTR amyloidosis , administered through various methods, including intravenous infusions and subcutaneous injections. In addition, the stabilization of TTR tetramers with the use of drugs such as tafamidis and diflunisal has effectively prevented the formation of amyloidogenic monomers. Moreover, other investigational agents, including TTR stabilizers like acoramidis and tolcapone, as well as novel compounds that inhibit amyloid formation and disrupt fibrils, are expanding the therapeutic landscape for hATTR amyloidosis , providing hope for improved management of this complex condition.
Dr. Gertz is a professor and consultant in the Department of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Ionis, and Alnylym.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Complement Inhibitor Scores Impressive Data in CIDP
DENVER — , with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.
‘Impressive’ Results
The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.
“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
An Open-Label Phase 2 Study
The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).
At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.
The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.
Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
Challenging the Current Standard of Care
The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.
Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER — , with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.
‘Impressive’ Results
The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.
“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
An Open-Label Phase 2 Study
The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).
At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.
The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.
Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
Challenging the Current Standard of Care
The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.
Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER — , with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.
‘Impressive’ Results
The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.
“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
An Open-Label Phase 2 Study
The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).
At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.
The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.
Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
Challenging the Current Standard of Care
The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.
Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM AAN 2024
Approved Therapy for ALS Is Withdrawn When New Study Shows No Benefit
DENVER —
As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials
In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).
The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.
In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.
For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.
Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.
As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated
The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.
When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.
An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.
Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
‘Unfortunate’ Results
Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.
Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.
In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.
“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.
However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.
“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”
Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER —
As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials
In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).
The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.
In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.
For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.
Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.
As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated
The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.
When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.
An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.
Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
‘Unfortunate’ Results
Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.
Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.
In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.
“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.
However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.
“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”
Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER —
As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials
In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).
The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.
In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.
For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.
Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.
As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated
The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.
When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.
An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.
Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
‘Unfortunate’ Results
Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.
Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.
In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.
“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.
However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.
“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”
Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM AAN 2024
Positive Results From Phase 2 Trial Support Potential New Option for Control of CIDP
DENVER — , according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.
ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date
In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.
After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.
The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,
The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.
The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.
There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial
For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.
By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.
When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.
In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.
On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated
Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.
“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.
The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.
There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.
“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.
Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.
Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER — , according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.
ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date
In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.
After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.
The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,
The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.
The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.
There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial
For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.
By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.
When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.
In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.
On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated
Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.
“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.
The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.
There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.
“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.
Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.
Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER — , according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.
ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date
In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.
After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.
The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,
The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.
The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.
There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial
For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.
By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.
When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.
In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.
On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated
Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.
“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.
The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.
There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.
“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.
Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.
Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM AAN 2024
Prominent Researcher Describes Pivot From ALS Treatment to Prevention
DENVER — After working for decades in a field littered with promising but failed clinical trials, a prominent researcher in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) has decided to turn her attention to prevention, a direction of research that she thinks has more promise.
According to the gene-time hypothesis, duration of exposure to noxious chemicals and genetic susceptibility are key drivers of ALS risk, explained Eva Feldman, MD, PhD, director of the ALS Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She believes that existing research in risk modification is already promising.
“I think ALS prevention is real and attainable,” she said as this year’s recipient of the Sheila Essey Award for significant contributions in ALS research.
In describing her “pivot” to prevention from treatment at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Feldman described her growing pessimism about treating a disease that has so consistently resisted even stabilization, let alone cure.
“I spent 10 years trying to repurpose IGF-1 as an ALS therapy. We took it from preclinical work all the way to a phase 3 multicenter trial, but in the end no effect was seen,” Dr. Feldman said,
This was followed by another 10 years spent on the promise of stem cells. In this case, she was eventually involved in two multicenter trials. In fact, trials are still ongoing in Europe, but Dr. Feldman said this strategy is “no longer going forward in the United States,” and she no longer anticipates favorable results.
The New Focus on Prevention
The basic concept in the prevention studies she is now working on with Stephen Goutman, MD, a frequent coauthor, and other colleagues at her center, is that the duration of exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs), along with some degree of genetic predisposition, determines risk for ALS. The simple idea is the reducing exposure will reduce ALS risk.
There is already substantial support for the underlying time-gene hypothesis, according to Dr. Feldman. Among several examples, she described work with 122 POPS that appear individually and in many cases collectively to correlate with ALS risk. Recent work with an environmental risk score (ERS) that permits studies of risk when accounting for exposure to families of pollutants, has supported these as potentially modifiable risks.
A high ERS “correlates with an ALS risk that is 3 to 4 times higher than a low score,” she said. In addition, those ALS patients with a high relative to a low ERS have a significant 0.6-year reduction in median survival.
Some specific POPs, such as pesticides, correlate with increased risk by themselves, but Dr. Feldman has begun focusing on occupational exposures, particularly in industries that are most likely to increase exposure POPs. Several of the POPs most implicated in ALS, such as polychlorinated biphenyls used in coolants and lubricants, organochlorine pesticides, and polybrominated diphenyl esters, are already banned or mostly banned in the United States, but they persist in the environment and remain legal elsewhere.
Dr. Feldman reported no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER — After working for decades in a field littered with promising but failed clinical trials, a prominent researcher in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) has decided to turn her attention to prevention, a direction of research that she thinks has more promise.
According to the gene-time hypothesis, duration of exposure to noxious chemicals and genetic susceptibility are key drivers of ALS risk, explained Eva Feldman, MD, PhD, director of the ALS Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She believes that existing research in risk modification is already promising.
“I think ALS prevention is real and attainable,” she said as this year’s recipient of the Sheila Essey Award for significant contributions in ALS research.
In describing her “pivot” to prevention from treatment at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Feldman described her growing pessimism about treating a disease that has so consistently resisted even stabilization, let alone cure.
“I spent 10 years trying to repurpose IGF-1 as an ALS therapy. We took it from preclinical work all the way to a phase 3 multicenter trial, but in the end no effect was seen,” Dr. Feldman said,
This was followed by another 10 years spent on the promise of stem cells. In this case, she was eventually involved in two multicenter trials. In fact, trials are still ongoing in Europe, but Dr. Feldman said this strategy is “no longer going forward in the United States,” and she no longer anticipates favorable results.
The New Focus on Prevention
The basic concept in the prevention studies she is now working on with Stephen Goutman, MD, a frequent coauthor, and other colleagues at her center, is that the duration of exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs), along with some degree of genetic predisposition, determines risk for ALS. The simple idea is the reducing exposure will reduce ALS risk.
There is already substantial support for the underlying time-gene hypothesis, according to Dr. Feldman. Among several examples, she described work with 122 POPS that appear individually and in many cases collectively to correlate with ALS risk. Recent work with an environmental risk score (ERS) that permits studies of risk when accounting for exposure to families of pollutants, has supported these as potentially modifiable risks.
A high ERS “correlates with an ALS risk that is 3 to 4 times higher than a low score,” she said. In addition, those ALS patients with a high relative to a low ERS have a significant 0.6-year reduction in median survival.
Some specific POPs, such as pesticides, correlate with increased risk by themselves, but Dr. Feldman has begun focusing on occupational exposures, particularly in industries that are most likely to increase exposure POPs. Several of the POPs most implicated in ALS, such as polychlorinated biphenyls used in coolants and lubricants, organochlorine pesticides, and polybrominated diphenyl esters, are already banned or mostly banned in the United States, but they persist in the environment and remain legal elsewhere.
Dr. Feldman reported no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER — After working for decades in a field littered with promising but failed clinical trials, a prominent researcher in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) has decided to turn her attention to prevention, a direction of research that she thinks has more promise.
According to the gene-time hypothesis, duration of exposure to noxious chemicals and genetic susceptibility are key drivers of ALS risk, explained Eva Feldman, MD, PhD, director of the ALS Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She believes that existing research in risk modification is already promising.
“I think ALS prevention is real and attainable,” she said as this year’s recipient of the Sheila Essey Award for significant contributions in ALS research.
In describing her “pivot” to prevention from treatment at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Feldman described her growing pessimism about treating a disease that has so consistently resisted even stabilization, let alone cure.
“I spent 10 years trying to repurpose IGF-1 as an ALS therapy. We took it from preclinical work all the way to a phase 3 multicenter trial, but in the end no effect was seen,” Dr. Feldman said,
This was followed by another 10 years spent on the promise of stem cells. In this case, she was eventually involved in two multicenter trials. In fact, trials are still ongoing in Europe, but Dr. Feldman said this strategy is “no longer going forward in the United States,” and she no longer anticipates favorable results.
The New Focus on Prevention
The basic concept in the prevention studies she is now working on with Stephen Goutman, MD, a frequent coauthor, and other colleagues at her center, is that the duration of exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs), along with some degree of genetic predisposition, determines risk for ALS. The simple idea is the reducing exposure will reduce ALS risk.
There is already substantial support for the underlying time-gene hypothesis, according to Dr. Feldman. Among several examples, she described work with 122 POPS that appear individually and in many cases collectively to correlate with ALS risk. Recent work with an environmental risk score (ERS) that permits studies of risk when accounting for exposure to families of pollutants, has supported these as potentially modifiable risks.
A high ERS “correlates with an ALS risk that is 3 to 4 times higher than a low score,” she said. In addition, those ALS patients with a high relative to a low ERS have a significant 0.6-year reduction in median survival.
Some specific POPs, such as pesticides, correlate with increased risk by themselves, but Dr. Feldman has begun focusing on occupational exposures, particularly in industries that are most likely to increase exposure POPs. Several of the POPs most implicated in ALS, such as polychlorinated biphenyls used in coolants and lubricants, organochlorine pesticides, and polybrominated diphenyl esters, are already banned or mostly banned in the United States, but they persist in the environment and remain legal elsewhere.
Dr. Feldman reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM AAN 2024
Chronic Pain Linked to Accelerated Brain Aging
, new research showed.
Using structural MRI data from more than 9000 adults with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) from the UK Biobank, investigators developed a brain age model to compare an individual’s brain age with their chronological age. Those with KOA showed a much faster rate of brain aging than healthy individuals.
The acceleration in brain aging was largely driven by the hippocampus and predicted memory decline and incident dementia during follow-up. Researchers identified a gene highly expressed in glial cells as a possible genetic factor for accelerated brain aging.
“We demonstrate the accelerated brain aging and cognitive decline in chronic musculoskeletal pain, in particular knee osteoarthritis, and provide a neural marker for early detection and intervention,” said co-first author Jiao Liu, PhD candidate, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing.
“We are interested to know how to slow down the aging brain in chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. Proper exercise and lifestyle may reduce the risk,” Dr. Liu said.
The study was published online in Nature Mental Health.
Common Condition
CMP affects more than 40% of the world’s population and has been shown to have a harmful impact on cognitive function, although the exact mechanisms remain unclear. Prior research suggests that inflammatory markers associated with brain aging are higher in patients with CMP, suggesting a link between brain aging and CMP.
To investigate further, researchers explored patterns of brain aging in healthy cohorts and cohorts with four common types of CMP — chronic knee pain, chronic back pain, chronic neck pain, and chronic hip pain.
Using their brain age model, investigators observed significantly increased brain aging, or “predicted age difference,” only in individuals with KOA (P < .001). The observation was validated in an independent dataset (P = .020), suggesting a pattern of brain aging acceleration specific to KOA.
This acceleration was primarily driven by key brain regions involved in cognitive processing, including hippocampus and orbitofrontal cortex, and was correlated with longitudinal memory decline and dementia risk.
These data also suggest that the SLC39A8 gene, which is highly expressed in glial cells, might be a key genetic factor underpinning this acceleration.
“We not only revealed the specificity of accelerated brain aging in knee osteoarthritis patients, but importantly, we also provided longitudinal evidence suggesting the ability of our brain aging marker to predict future memory decline and increased dementia risk,” corresponding author Yiheng Tu, PhD, also with Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, said in a news release.
A Future Treatment Target?
Commenting on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, noted that in this study, people with KOA showed signs of “faster brain aging on scans. Think of it as your brain wearing a disguise, appearing older than its actual years,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“Inflammation, a key player in osteoarthritis, might be playing a double agent, wreaking havoc not just on your joints but potentially on your memory too. Researchers even identified a specific gene linked to both knee pain and faster brain aging, hinting at a potential target for future treatments,” he added.
“Importantly, the increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia associated with chronic pain is likely one of many factors, and probably not a very high one on its own,” Dr. Lakhan noted.
The “good news,” he said, is that there are many “well-established ways to keep your brain sharp. Regular exercise, a healthy diet, and staying mentally stimulated are all proven strategies to reduce dementia risk. Think of chronic pain management as another tool you can add to your brain health toolbox.”
Support for the study was provided by the STI-2030 Major Project, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Scientific Foundation of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by the China Association for Science and Technology. Dr. Liu and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
Using structural MRI data from more than 9000 adults with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) from the UK Biobank, investigators developed a brain age model to compare an individual’s brain age with their chronological age. Those with KOA showed a much faster rate of brain aging than healthy individuals.
The acceleration in brain aging was largely driven by the hippocampus and predicted memory decline and incident dementia during follow-up. Researchers identified a gene highly expressed in glial cells as a possible genetic factor for accelerated brain aging.
“We demonstrate the accelerated brain aging and cognitive decline in chronic musculoskeletal pain, in particular knee osteoarthritis, and provide a neural marker for early detection and intervention,” said co-first author Jiao Liu, PhD candidate, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing.
“We are interested to know how to slow down the aging brain in chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. Proper exercise and lifestyle may reduce the risk,” Dr. Liu said.
The study was published online in Nature Mental Health.
Common Condition
CMP affects more than 40% of the world’s population and has been shown to have a harmful impact on cognitive function, although the exact mechanisms remain unclear. Prior research suggests that inflammatory markers associated with brain aging are higher in patients with CMP, suggesting a link between brain aging and CMP.
To investigate further, researchers explored patterns of brain aging in healthy cohorts and cohorts with four common types of CMP — chronic knee pain, chronic back pain, chronic neck pain, and chronic hip pain.
Using their brain age model, investigators observed significantly increased brain aging, or “predicted age difference,” only in individuals with KOA (P < .001). The observation was validated in an independent dataset (P = .020), suggesting a pattern of brain aging acceleration specific to KOA.
This acceleration was primarily driven by key brain regions involved in cognitive processing, including hippocampus and orbitofrontal cortex, and was correlated with longitudinal memory decline and dementia risk.
These data also suggest that the SLC39A8 gene, which is highly expressed in glial cells, might be a key genetic factor underpinning this acceleration.
“We not only revealed the specificity of accelerated brain aging in knee osteoarthritis patients, but importantly, we also provided longitudinal evidence suggesting the ability of our brain aging marker to predict future memory decline and increased dementia risk,” corresponding author Yiheng Tu, PhD, also with Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, said in a news release.
A Future Treatment Target?
Commenting on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, noted that in this study, people with KOA showed signs of “faster brain aging on scans. Think of it as your brain wearing a disguise, appearing older than its actual years,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“Inflammation, a key player in osteoarthritis, might be playing a double agent, wreaking havoc not just on your joints but potentially on your memory too. Researchers even identified a specific gene linked to both knee pain and faster brain aging, hinting at a potential target for future treatments,” he added.
“Importantly, the increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia associated with chronic pain is likely one of many factors, and probably not a very high one on its own,” Dr. Lakhan noted.
The “good news,” he said, is that there are many “well-established ways to keep your brain sharp. Regular exercise, a healthy diet, and staying mentally stimulated are all proven strategies to reduce dementia risk. Think of chronic pain management as another tool you can add to your brain health toolbox.”
Support for the study was provided by the STI-2030 Major Project, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Scientific Foundation of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by the China Association for Science and Technology. Dr. Liu and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
Using structural MRI data from more than 9000 adults with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) from the UK Biobank, investigators developed a brain age model to compare an individual’s brain age with their chronological age. Those with KOA showed a much faster rate of brain aging than healthy individuals.
The acceleration in brain aging was largely driven by the hippocampus and predicted memory decline and incident dementia during follow-up. Researchers identified a gene highly expressed in glial cells as a possible genetic factor for accelerated brain aging.
“We demonstrate the accelerated brain aging and cognitive decline in chronic musculoskeletal pain, in particular knee osteoarthritis, and provide a neural marker for early detection and intervention,” said co-first author Jiao Liu, PhD candidate, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing.
“We are interested to know how to slow down the aging brain in chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. Proper exercise and lifestyle may reduce the risk,” Dr. Liu said.
The study was published online in Nature Mental Health.
Common Condition
CMP affects more than 40% of the world’s population and has been shown to have a harmful impact on cognitive function, although the exact mechanisms remain unclear. Prior research suggests that inflammatory markers associated with brain aging are higher in patients with CMP, suggesting a link between brain aging and CMP.
To investigate further, researchers explored patterns of brain aging in healthy cohorts and cohorts with four common types of CMP — chronic knee pain, chronic back pain, chronic neck pain, and chronic hip pain.
Using their brain age model, investigators observed significantly increased brain aging, or “predicted age difference,” only in individuals with KOA (P < .001). The observation was validated in an independent dataset (P = .020), suggesting a pattern of brain aging acceleration specific to KOA.
This acceleration was primarily driven by key brain regions involved in cognitive processing, including hippocampus and orbitofrontal cortex, and was correlated with longitudinal memory decline and dementia risk.
These data also suggest that the SLC39A8 gene, which is highly expressed in glial cells, might be a key genetic factor underpinning this acceleration.
“We not only revealed the specificity of accelerated brain aging in knee osteoarthritis patients, but importantly, we also provided longitudinal evidence suggesting the ability of our brain aging marker to predict future memory decline and increased dementia risk,” corresponding author Yiheng Tu, PhD, also with Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, said in a news release.
A Future Treatment Target?
Commenting on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, noted that in this study, people with KOA showed signs of “faster brain aging on scans. Think of it as your brain wearing a disguise, appearing older than its actual years,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“Inflammation, a key player in osteoarthritis, might be playing a double agent, wreaking havoc not just on your joints but potentially on your memory too. Researchers even identified a specific gene linked to both knee pain and faster brain aging, hinting at a potential target for future treatments,” he added.
“Importantly, the increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia associated with chronic pain is likely one of many factors, and probably not a very high one on its own,” Dr. Lakhan noted.
The “good news,” he said, is that there are many “well-established ways to keep your brain sharp. Regular exercise, a healthy diet, and staying mentally stimulated are all proven strategies to reduce dementia risk. Think of chronic pain management as another tool you can add to your brain health toolbox.”
Support for the study was provided by the STI-2030 Major Project, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Scientific Foundation of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by the China Association for Science and Technology. Dr. Liu and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE MENTAL HEALTH
Billions Spent on DMD Meds Despite Scant Proof of Efficacy
Three genetically targeted drugs for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) — eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen — cost the US health care system more than $3 billion between 2016 and 2022, despite a lack of confirmatory efficacy data, a new analysis showed.
“We were certainly surprised to see how much was spent on these drugs during the period when we were still waiting for evidence to confirm whether or not they were effective,” study investigator Benjamin Rome, MD, MPH, with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.
“With these drugs often costing over $1 million a year, these results show how spending can add up even for drugs that treat a rare disease,” Dr. Rome added.
The study was published online March 11, 2024, in JAMA.
No Confirmatory Research
Investigators estimated public and private spending on eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen for DMD during 2016 and 2022 — years in which these drugs were marketed without the required confirmatory studies completed.
Annual net sales, which include rebates and statutory discounts to Medicaid or 340B entities, for the three drugs totaled $3.1 billion during the study period. Estimated Medicaid and Medicare spending accounted for $1.2 billion of that total. Of this total, Medicaid programs spent $1.1 billion (34% of US net sales) and Medicare spent $104 million (3% of US net sales).
Overall sales for the drugs increased from $7 million in 2016 to $879 million in 2022, while Medicaid and Medicare spending rose from $25 million in 2017 to $327 million in 2022.
Most of the spending on these therapies was for eteplirsen ($2.6 billion [82%]), “the efficacy of which has yet to be determined in a confirmatory trial more than 7 years after the drug’s accelerated approval,” the authors noted.
Of the total amount spent on the three drugs, US payers spent an estimated $301 million (10%) on casimersen and $263 million (8%) on golodirsen.
The findings point to the importance of follow up on drugs that are approved with preliminary evidence, Rome said.
“Congress and the US Food and Drug Administration have already made some important changes to the accelerated approval pathway, so hopefully we won’t see cases of multi-year delays in the future,” he said.
“Payers, including public payers like Medicare and Medicaid, need tools to financially encourage companies to complete the follow-up trials, such as paying less for drugs with accelerated approval or engaging in outcomes-based contracts to ensure they don’t pay billions of dollars for drugs that ultimately turn out not to be effective,” Dr. Rome added.
Reached for comment, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, noted that when a condition impacts a small population, as is the case with muscular dystrophy, there are fewer people over which to spread the cost of treatment development.
Dr. Powell pointed to a recent report that showed the average cost of developing a new drug exceeds $2 billion. The finding in the current study, that three DMD treatments had combined net sales of $3.1 billion over a 7-year period, “suggests that their developers may not have yet recouped their development costs,” Dr. Powell told this news organization.
“Unless the cost of drug development can be lessened through innovations in artificial intelligence or other means, high spending per patient for drugs addressing uncommon conditions is to be expected,” noted Dr. Powell, who was not part of the study.
“That said, it is concerning when substantial funds are being spent by public payers on treatments that do not work,” he added. “As the authors suggest, one option is to tie reimbursement to efficacy. While patients living with deadly conditions cannot indefinitely wait for treatments to be validated, clawing back payments in the event of inefficacy is always an option.”
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Rome reported receiving grants from the Elevance Health Public Policy Institute, the National Academy for State Health Policy, and several state prescription drug affordability boards outside the submitted work. Powell had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Three genetically targeted drugs for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) — eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen — cost the US health care system more than $3 billion between 2016 and 2022, despite a lack of confirmatory efficacy data, a new analysis showed.
“We were certainly surprised to see how much was spent on these drugs during the period when we were still waiting for evidence to confirm whether or not they were effective,” study investigator Benjamin Rome, MD, MPH, with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.
“With these drugs often costing over $1 million a year, these results show how spending can add up even for drugs that treat a rare disease,” Dr. Rome added.
The study was published online March 11, 2024, in JAMA.
No Confirmatory Research
Investigators estimated public and private spending on eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen for DMD during 2016 and 2022 — years in which these drugs were marketed without the required confirmatory studies completed.
Annual net sales, which include rebates and statutory discounts to Medicaid or 340B entities, for the three drugs totaled $3.1 billion during the study period. Estimated Medicaid and Medicare spending accounted for $1.2 billion of that total. Of this total, Medicaid programs spent $1.1 billion (34% of US net sales) and Medicare spent $104 million (3% of US net sales).
Overall sales for the drugs increased from $7 million in 2016 to $879 million in 2022, while Medicaid and Medicare spending rose from $25 million in 2017 to $327 million in 2022.
Most of the spending on these therapies was for eteplirsen ($2.6 billion [82%]), “the efficacy of which has yet to be determined in a confirmatory trial more than 7 years after the drug’s accelerated approval,” the authors noted.
Of the total amount spent on the three drugs, US payers spent an estimated $301 million (10%) on casimersen and $263 million (8%) on golodirsen.
The findings point to the importance of follow up on drugs that are approved with preliminary evidence, Rome said.
“Congress and the US Food and Drug Administration have already made some important changes to the accelerated approval pathway, so hopefully we won’t see cases of multi-year delays in the future,” he said.
“Payers, including public payers like Medicare and Medicaid, need tools to financially encourage companies to complete the follow-up trials, such as paying less for drugs with accelerated approval or engaging in outcomes-based contracts to ensure they don’t pay billions of dollars for drugs that ultimately turn out not to be effective,” Dr. Rome added.
Reached for comment, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, noted that when a condition impacts a small population, as is the case with muscular dystrophy, there are fewer people over which to spread the cost of treatment development.
Dr. Powell pointed to a recent report that showed the average cost of developing a new drug exceeds $2 billion. The finding in the current study, that three DMD treatments had combined net sales of $3.1 billion over a 7-year period, “suggests that their developers may not have yet recouped their development costs,” Dr. Powell told this news organization.
“Unless the cost of drug development can be lessened through innovations in artificial intelligence or other means, high spending per patient for drugs addressing uncommon conditions is to be expected,” noted Dr. Powell, who was not part of the study.
“That said, it is concerning when substantial funds are being spent by public payers on treatments that do not work,” he added. “As the authors suggest, one option is to tie reimbursement to efficacy. While patients living with deadly conditions cannot indefinitely wait for treatments to be validated, clawing back payments in the event of inefficacy is always an option.”
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Rome reported receiving grants from the Elevance Health Public Policy Institute, the National Academy for State Health Policy, and several state prescription drug affordability boards outside the submitted work. Powell had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Three genetically targeted drugs for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) — eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen — cost the US health care system more than $3 billion between 2016 and 2022, despite a lack of confirmatory efficacy data, a new analysis showed.
“We were certainly surprised to see how much was spent on these drugs during the period when we were still waiting for evidence to confirm whether or not they were effective,” study investigator Benjamin Rome, MD, MPH, with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.
“With these drugs often costing over $1 million a year, these results show how spending can add up even for drugs that treat a rare disease,” Dr. Rome added.
The study was published online March 11, 2024, in JAMA.
No Confirmatory Research
Investigators estimated public and private spending on eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen for DMD during 2016 and 2022 — years in which these drugs were marketed without the required confirmatory studies completed.
Annual net sales, which include rebates and statutory discounts to Medicaid or 340B entities, for the three drugs totaled $3.1 billion during the study period. Estimated Medicaid and Medicare spending accounted for $1.2 billion of that total. Of this total, Medicaid programs spent $1.1 billion (34% of US net sales) and Medicare spent $104 million (3% of US net sales).
Overall sales for the drugs increased from $7 million in 2016 to $879 million in 2022, while Medicaid and Medicare spending rose from $25 million in 2017 to $327 million in 2022.
Most of the spending on these therapies was for eteplirsen ($2.6 billion [82%]), “the efficacy of which has yet to be determined in a confirmatory trial more than 7 years after the drug’s accelerated approval,” the authors noted.
Of the total amount spent on the three drugs, US payers spent an estimated $301 million (10%) on casimersen and $263 million (8%) on golodirsen.
The findings point to the importance of follow up on drugs that are approved with preliminary evidence, Rome said.
“Congress and the US Food and Drug Administration have already made some important changes to the accelerated approval pathway, so hopefully we won’t see cases of multi-year delays in the future,” he said.
“Payers, including public payers like Medicare and Medicaid, need tools to financially encourage companies to complete the follow-up trials, such as paying less for drugs with accelerated approval or engaging in outcomes-based contracts to ensure they don’t pay billions of dollars for drugs that ultimately turn out not to be effective,” Dr. Rome added.
Reached for comment, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, noted that when a condition impacts a small population, as is the case with muscular dystrophy, there are fewer people over which to spread the cost of treatment development.
Dr. Powell pointed to a recent report that showed the average cost of developing a new drug exceeds $2 billion. The finding in the current study, that three DMD treatments had combined net sales of $3.1 billion over a 7-year period, “suggests that their developers may not have yet recouped their development costs,” Dr. Powell told this news organization.
“Unless the cost of drug development can be lessened through innovations in artificial intelligence or other means, high spending per patient for drugs addressing uncommon conditions is to be expected,” noted Dr. Powell, who was not part of the study.
“That said, it is concerning when substantial funds are being spent by public payers on treatments that do not work,” he added. “As the authors suggest, one option is to tie reimbursement to efficacy. While patients living with deadly conditions cannot indefinitely wait for treatments to be validated, clawing back payments in the event of inefficacy is always an option.”
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Rome reported receiving grants from the Elevance Health Public Policy Institute, the National Academy for State Health Policy, and several state prescription drug affordability boards outside the submitted work. Powell had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Neurologists Read Signs to Diagnose Functional Neurological Disorders
They have gone by many different names over the centuries: hysteria, psychosomatic illnesses, psychogenic neurological disorders, conversion disorders, dissociative neurological symptom disorders. The terminology may change, but functional neurological disorders by any other name are still real and serious yet treatable phenomena.
Functional neurological disorders, or FNDs, live at the crossroads of neurology and psychiatry, and they are as much a product of the body as they are of the brain, say neurologists who specialize in treating these complex and clinically challenging conditions.
“Whether they’re easily recognized or not depends on someone’s training and experience in this regard,” said Mark Hallett, MD, of the Human Motor Control Section of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland.
“The difficulty has been that there hasn’t been very good education about functional disorders over the last 50 years or so,” he said in an interview.
However, with training and experience, clinicians can learn to identify these common and disabling conditions, Dr. Hallett said.
Varying Definitions
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5) labels FND as “conversion disorder,” and lists diagnostic criteria that include “one or more symptoms of altered voluntary motor or sensory function; clinical findings provide evidence of incompatibility between the symptom and recognized neurological or medical conditions; the symptom or deficit is not better explained by another medical or mental disorder;” and “the symptom or deficit causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning or warrants medical evaluation.”
Dr. Hallett offers his own definition of FND, which includes the following characteristics:
- A neurological disorder, characterized by almost any type of neurological symptom
- Not voluntarily produced
- Caused by a brain network dysfunction that does not exclude the possibility of normal function
- Sometimes due in part to a psychological cause, and not explained by other neurological pathology that may or may not be present
- Symptoms may be inconsistent (variable) or incompatible (incongruent) with other known neurological disorders or human anatomy and physiology.
The two most common types of FND are psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and functional movement disorders, but patients may also have functional sensory, visual, auditory, speech, and urologic disorders, and even functional coma.
Dr. Hallett cited studies showing that an estimated 9% of neurology hospital admission are for FNDS, and that among patients in neurology clinics 5.4% had a diagnosis of FND, and 30% had an FND as part of the diagnosis.
Women comprise between 60% and 75% of the population with FNDs.
Diagnosis
FND is not, as once thought, a diagnosis of exclusion, but is based on signs and symptoms, which may be either inconsistent or irreversible and may occur in the absence of a stressor, said Sara Finkelstein, MD, MSc, of the Functional Neurological Disorder Unit in the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
She emphasized that there are several diagnostic pitfalls that clinicians need to be aware of.
For example, “just because a patient has a psychiatric history does not mean that they have a functional neurological disorder,” she said in an interview.
Clinicians may also make unwarranted assumptions about a given patient, excluding an FND diagnosis in, say, a young woman with symptoms of anxiety. Alternatively, clinicians may either include or exclude a diagnosis based on personality factors or on a prior stressor, neither of which alone are sufficiently diagnostic.
Additionally, a clinician may be tempted to make the diagnosis of an FND based on the absence of findings on standard exams rather than on rule-in signs and symptoms, she emphasized.
Functional seizures
A definitive diagnosis can depend on the type of disorder.
“Many functional seizures have some clinical manifestations that are apparent, but as seizures are intermittent the doctor may not see one, and it may depend upon someone taking a video of the person with the seizure perhaps, or bringing them into a hospital and watching them until they do have the seizure,” Dr. Hallett said.
There are some manifestations that indicate the likelihood that a seizure has a functional origin, and when there is uncertainty EEG can help to nail down a diagnosis, he added.
Dr. Finkelstein noted that exam signs with good reliability for functional seizures include eye closure or resistance to opening; duration longer than 2 minutes; stopping and starting; asynchronous limb movements; patient maintenance of awareness during a generalized event; and ictal weeping.
Differential diagnoses included migraine with complex aura, dissociation related to posttraumatic stress disorder, or anxiety.
Functional movement disorders
Dr. Finkelstein cautioned that when evaluating patients for potential functional movement disorders, it’s important to not jump to conclusions.
For example, the amplitude of tremor can vary in Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor as well as in functional tremor. The clinician should not read too much into the observation that a patient’s tremor gets worse with increasing stress as stress can exacerbate most tremor types, she said.
One sign that tremor could be functional (dystonic tremor) is irregularity of amplitude and frequency, she noted.
When assessing patients with gait disorder, it’s important to understand that there is no single sign that is specially characteristic for a given disorder, and just because a patient has a “bizarre” gait, it doesn’t necessarily signal a functional disorder.
“A dystonic gait may improve with an alternate motor pattern or be inconsistent over time,” Dr. Finkelstein said.
Treatment
In a comprehensive review published in The Lancet: Neurology in 2022, Dr. Hallett and colleagues said that good doctor-patient communications and understanding of each patient’s needs and goals are essential for effective treatment of all FNDs.
“Neurologists have traditionally avoided taking responsibility for people with FND, although are often most appropriate to engage patients in treatment. Explaining the diagnosis with clarity, confidence, using the principles of a ‘rule in’ process, is a key step in treatment,” they wrote.
Treatment can take several forms, depending on the FND, and may include physiotherapy for patients with functional movement disorders and psychological therapy for patients with functional seizures.
“With increasing evidence-based treatment, the diagnosis of FND should be seen as a process of looking for potentially reversible cause of disability and distress whether or not an individual has abnormalities on conventional laboratory or radiological testing,” Dr. Hallett and colleagues concluded.
This article was based on interviews and from presentations by Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein at a 2023 meeting of the Indiana Neurological Society. Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein declared no conflicts of interest.
They have gone by many different names over the centuries: hysteria, psychosomatic illnesses, psychogenic neurological disorders, conversion disorders, dissociative neurological symptom disorders. The terminology may change, but functional neurological disorders by any other name are still real and serious yet treatable phenomena.
Functional neurological disorders, or FNDs, live at the crossroads of neurology and psychiatry, and they are as much a product of the body as they are of the brain, say neurologists who specialize in treating these complex and clinically challenging conditions.
“Whether they’re easily recognized or not depends on someone’s training and experience in this regard,” said Mark Hallett, MD, of the Human Motor Control Section of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland.
“The difficulty has been that there hasn’t been very good education about functional disorders over the last 50 years or so,” he said in an interview.
However, with training and experience, clinicians can learn to identify these common and disabling conditions, Dr. Hallett said.
Varying Definitions
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5) labels FND as “conversion disorder,” and lists diagnostic criteria that include “one or more symptoms of altered voluntary motor or sensory function; clinical findings provide evidence of incompatibility between the symptom and recognized neurological or medical conditions; the symptom or deficit is not better explained by another medical or mental disorder;” and “the symptom or deficit causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning or warrants medical evaluation.”
Dr. Hallett offers his own definition of FND, which includes the following characteristics:
- A neurological disorder, characterized by almost any type of neurological symptom
- Not voluntarily produced
- Caused by a brain network dysfunction that does not exclude the possibility of normal function
- Sometimes due in part to a psychological cause, and not explained by other neurological pathology that may or may not be present
- Symptoms may be inconsistent (variable) or incompatible (incongruent) with other known neurological disorders or human anatomy and physiology.
The two most common types of FND are psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and functional movement disorders, but patients may also have functional sensory, visual, auditory, speech, and urologic disorders, and even functional coma.
Dr. Hallett cited studies showing that an estimated 9% of neurology hospital admission are for FNDS, and that among patients in neurology clinics 5.4% had a diagnosis of FND, and 30% had an FND as part of the diagnosis.
Women comprise between 60% and 75% of the population with FNDs.
Diagnosis
FND is not, as once thought, a diagnosis of exclusion, but is based on signs and symptoms, which may be either inconsistent or irreversible and may occur in the absence of a stressor, said Sara Finkelstein, MD, MSc, of the Functional Neurological Disorder Unit in the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
She emphasized that there are several diagnostic pitfalls that clinicians need to be aware of.
For example, “just because a patient has a psychiatric history does not mean that they have a functional neurological disorder,” she said in an interview.
Clinicians may also make unwarranted assumptions about a given patient, excluding an FND diagnosis in, say, a young woman with symptoms of anxiety. Alternatively, clinicians may either include or exclude a diagnosis based on personality factors or on a prior stressor, neither of which alone are sufficiently diagnostic.
Additionally, a clinician may be tempted to make the diagnosis of an FND based on the absence of findings on standard exams rather than on rule-in signs and symptoms, she emphasized.
Functional seizures
A definitive diagnosis can depend on the type of disorder.
“Many functional seizures have some clinical manifestations that are apparent, but as seizures are intermittent the doctor may not see one, and it may depend upon someone taking a video of the person with the seizure perhaps, or bringing them into a hospital and watching them until they do have the seizure,” Dr. Hallett said.
There are some manifestations that indicate the likelihood that a seizure has a functional origin, and when there is uncertainty EEG can help to nail down a diagnosis, he added.
Dr. Finkelstein noted that exam signs with good reliability for functional seizures include eye closure or resistance to opening; duration longer than 2 minutes; stopping and starting; asynchronous limb movements; patient maintenance of awareness during a generalized event; and ictal weeping.
Differential diagnoses included migraine with complex aura, dissociation related to posttraumatic stress disorder, or anxiety.
Functional movement disorders
Dr. Finkelstein cautioned that when evaluating patients for potential functional movement disorders, it’s important to not jump to conclusions.
For example, the amplitude of tremor can vary in Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor as well as in functional tremor. The clinician should not read too much into the observation that a patient’s tremor gets worse with increasing stress as stress can exacerbate most tremor types, she said.
One sign that tremor could be functional (dystonic tremor) is irregularity of amplitude and frequency, she noted.
When assessing patients with gait disorder, it’s important to understand that there is no single sign that is specially characteristic for a given disorder, and just because a patient has a “bizarre” gait, it doesn’t necessarily signal a functional disorder.
“A dystonic gait may improve with an alternate motor pattern or be inconsistent over time,” Dr. Finkelstein said.
Treatment
In a comprehensive review published in The Lancet: Neurology in 2022, Dr. Hallett and colleagues said that good doctor-patient communications and understanding of each patient’s needs and goals are essential for effective treatment of all FNDs.
“Neurologists have traditionally avoided taking responsibility for people with FND, although are often most appropriate to engage patients in treatment. Explaining the diagnosis with clarity, confidence, using the principles of a ‘rule in’ process, is a key step in treatment,” they wrote.
Treatment can take several forms, depending on the FND, and may include physiotherapy for patients with functional movement disorders and psychological therapy for patients with functional seizures.
“With increasing evidence-based treatment, the diagnosis of FND should be seen as a process of looking for potentially reversible cause of disability and distress whether or not an individual has abnormalities on conventional laboratory or radiological testing,” Dr. Hallett and colleagues concluded.
This article was based on interviews and from presentations by Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein at a 2023 meeting of the Indiana Neurological Society. Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein declared no conflicts of interest.
They have gone by many different names over the centuries: hysteria, psychosomatic illnesses, psychogenic neurological disorders, conversion disorders, dissociative neurological symptom disorders. The terminology may change, but functional neurological disorders by any other name are still real and serious yet treatable phenomena.
Functional neurological disorders, or FNDs, live at the crossroads of neurology and psychiatry, and they are as much a product of the body as they are of the brain, say neurologists who specialize in treating these complex and clinically challenging conditions.
“Whether they’re easily recognized or not depends on someone’s training and experience in this regard,” said Mark Hallett, MD, of the Human Motor Control Section of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland.
“The difficulty has been that there hasn’t been very good education about functional disorders over the last 50 years or so,” he said in an interview.
However, with training and experience, clinicians can learn to identify these common and disabling conditions, Dr. Hallett said.
Varying Definitions
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5) labels FND as “conversion disorder,” and lists diagnostic criteria that include “one or more symptoms of altered voluntary motor or sensory function; clinical findings provide evidence of incompatibility between the symptom and recognized neurological or medical conditions; the symptom or deficit is not better explained by another medical or mental disorder;” and “the symptom or deficit causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning or warrants medical evaluation.”
Dr. Hallett offers his own definition of FND, which includes the following characteristics:
- A neurological disorder, characterized by almost any type of neurological symptom
- Not voluntarily produced
- Caused by a brain network dysfunction that does not exclude the possibility of normal function
- Sometimes due in part to a psychological cause, and not explained by other neurological pathology that may or may not be present
- Symptoms may be inconsistent (variable) or incompatible (incongruent) with other known neurological disorders or human anatomy and physiology.
The two most common types of FND are psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and functional movement disorders, but patients may also have functional sensory, visual, auditory, speech, and urologic disorders, and even functional coma.
Dr. Hallett cited studies showing that an estimated 9% of neurology hospital admission are for FNDS, and that among patients in neurology clinics 5.4% had a diagnosis of FND, and 30% had an FND as part of the diagnosis.
Women comprise between 60% and 75% of the population with FNDs.
Diagnosis
FND is not, as once thought, a diagnosis of exclusion, but is based on signs and symptoms, which may be either inconsistent or irreversible and may occur in the absence of a stressor, said Sara Finkelstein, MD, MSc, of the Functional Neurological Disorder Unit in the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
She emphasized that there are several diagnostic pitfalls that clinicians need to be aware of.
For example, “just because a patient has a psychiatric history does not mean that they have a functional neurological disorder,” she said in an interview.
Clinicians may also make unwarranted assumptions about a given patient, excluding an FND diagnosis in, say, a young woman with symptoms of anxiety. Alternatively, clinicians may either include or exclude a diagnosis based on personality factors or on a prior stressor, neither of which alone are sufficiently diagnostic.
Additionally, a clinician may be tempted to make the diagnosis of an FND based on the absence of findings on standard exams rather than on rule-in signs and symptoms, she emphasized.
Functional seizures
A definitive diagnosis can depend on the type of disorder.
“Many functional seizures have some clinical manifestations that are apparent, but as seizures are intermittent the doctor may not see one, and it may depend upon someone taking a video of the person with the seizure perhaps, or bringing them into a hospital and watching them until they do have the seizure,” Dr. Hallett said.
There are some manifestations that indicate the likelihood that a seizure has a functional origin, and when there is uncertainty EEG can help to nail down a diagnosis, he added.
Dr. Finkelstein noted that exam signs with good reliability for functional seizures include eye closure or resistance to opening; duration longer than 2 minutes; stopping and starting; asynchronous limb movements; patient maintenance of awareness during a generalized event; and ictal weeping.
Differential diagnoses included migraine with complex aura, dissociation related to posttraumatic stress disorder, or anxiety.
Functional movement disorders
Dr. Finkelstein cautioned that when evaluating patients for potential functional movement disorders, it’s important to not jump to conclusions.
For example, the amplitude of tremor can vary in Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor as well as in functional tremor. The clinician should not read too much into the observation that a patient’s tremor gets worse with increasing stress as stress can exacerbate most tremor types, she said.
One sign that tremor could be functional (dystonic tremor) is irregularity of amplitude and frequency, she noted.
When assessing patients with gait disorder, it’s important to understand that there is no single sign that is specially characteristic for a given disorder, and just because a patient has a “bizarre” gait, it doesn’t necessarily signal a functional disorder.
“A dystonic gait may improve with an alternate motor pattern or be inconsistent over time,” Dr. Finkelstein said.
Treatment
In a comprehensive review published in The Lancet: Neurology in 2022, Dr. Hallett and colleagues said that good doctor-patient communications and understanding of each patient’s needs and goals are essential for effective treatment of all FNDs.
“Neurologists have traditionally avoided taking responsibility for people with FND, although are often most appropriate to engage patients in treatment. Explaining the diagnosis with clarity, confidence, using the principles of a ‘rule in’ process, is a key step in treatment,” they wrote.
Treatment can take several forms, depending on the FND, and may include physiotherapy for patients with functional movement disorders and psychological therapy for patients with functional seizures.
“With increasing evidence-based treatment, the diagnosis of FND should be seen as a process of looking for potentially reversible cause of disability and distress whether or not an individual has abnormalities on conventional laboratory or radiological testing,” Dr. Hallett and colleagues concluded.
This article was based on interviews and from presentations by Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein at a 2023 meeting of the Indiana Neurological Society. Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein declared no conflicts of interest.
FROM THE INDIANA NEUROLOGICAL SOCIETY’S FUNCTIONAL NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS CONFERENCE