Damian McNamara

The National Institute of Mental Health’s 2020 Strategic Plan outlines priorities in basic science research and clinical trials for psychiatry over the next 5 years, emphasizing where advances are needed in suicide prevention, digital health technology, early diagnosis in psychosis, and much more.

Experts’ reaction to the strategic plan is mixed. Some applaud the NIMH for addressing many essential research priorities and for returning a balance to the focus on basic/translational research and clinical advances. Others would have liked to see a different emphasis on some components of the plan.
 

Focusing on diversity

A greater weight on research in diverse populations and a renewed focus on studies across the lifespan – including developmental origins of psychiatric illness – are among the novel aspects of the plan.

“The enhanced attention to recruiting diverse subjects and focusing on diversity in our research is new and very welcome,” Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Research, said in an interview.

Addressing the entire lifespan is likewise important, added Dr. Alpert, who holds the Dorothy and Marty Silverman Chair of Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. “Many of the conditions we treat – whether they are mood disorders or even dementia– might have developmental origins that would be best studied early in life.”

Furthermore, the plan promotes more interdisciplinary collaboration. For example, there are new cross-cutting research themes, including prevention, environmental influences, global health, and more. These are areas where psychiatry needs strengthening, said Stevan M. Weine, MD, director of Global Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in an interview.

In the era of COVID-19, which will involve ongoing diseases and disasters such as those tied to climate changes and disparities, there will be a need to conduct research and train researchers who are more open to new research questions, said Dr. Weine, also director of the Center for Global Health and professor of psychiatry at the university. It also will be important to partner with researchers from multiple disciplines, he added.

The plan also recognizes novel applications of digital technology. In addition, the plan outlines the promise of “harnessing the power of data,” such as machine learning, to help identify suicide risk factors based on large data, for example. However, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, predicted that this technology will likely identify factors that “we see again and again,” such as depression, other forms of mental illness, and previous attempt history.

“Machine learning is useful but should not be emphasized” even if it is “technologically sexy and almost seductive,” Dr. Galynker, director of the Suicide Research & Prevention Laboratory at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.
 

Addressing suicide

The strategic plan places a renewed emphasis on suicide prevention. The report cites a “troubling rise in the national suicide rate.” The authors suggested expanding initial success with brief screening tools in emergency departments to other clinical settings. Furthermore, the report highlights evidence that pairing such screening with low-cost follow-up interventions, such as telephone calls, can reduce the number of suicide attempts the following year.

Widespread screening could help identify people at risk, but it relies on the honesty of self-reporting, Dr. Galynker said, adding that about 75% of people who end their own lives never disclose their plan to anyone. Furthermore, suicide intent can be very short-lived – a crisis lasting as little as 15 minutes for some – reducing the likelihood that routine screening will flag a person in crisis.

“What is missing is an individual approach,” Dr. Galynker said while also endorsing the systemic approach to suicide prevention in the plan. “One thing in the strategic plan I may not agree with is the emphasis on administrative prediction measures ... based on drop-down menus and risk factors, and not on patient stories.” Risk factors are useful for long-term or lifetime risk, but they are not going to predict who will switch to acute suicidal state in the next several days or hours.”

Instead, Dr. Galynker suggested screening people for suicide crisis syndrome, which is “a very defined, characteristic, reproducible, and importantly, treatable,” state.

Covering basic neuroscience

Suicide prevention is just one of seven challenges and opportunities highlighted in the strategic plan. The authors also address research priorities for early treatment of psychosis and for research into mental health equity, HIV/AIDS research, genetics, and neural circuits.

“My overall impression is it’s very positive,” said Dr. Alpert, who is also professor and chair of the psychiatry and behavioral sciences department at Albert Einstein. “It really spans basic and translational neuroscience all the way to health services research and health disparities research. And I think, for many of us, we welcome that. It feels very relevant to the broad span of meaningful psychiatric research.”

Dr. Weine agreed. The strategic plan is “very helpful,” he said. “It is comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary.”
 

Promoting four overall goals

The plan seeks to promote the four following goals:

• Define the brain mechanisms underlying complex behaviors.
• Examine mental illness trajectories across the lifespan.
• Strive for prevention and cures.
• Strengthen the public health effects of National Institutes of Health–supported research.

The first goal is “an effort to try to make sense of the underlying biology, and that has to be your foundation point,” Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer at the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Arlington, Va., said in an interview. “The reason we don’t have a lot of new drug discovery is because the fundamentals of biology still need understanding. It’s a long-term goal, so it’s hard,” he added. “Everyone living with someone in their life with an illness wants better ideas now.”

The third goal is likewise challenging, Dr. Duckworth said. “That is optimistic and ... aspirational, but very important and valuable.”

Developing innovative models

Regarding the public health goal, Dr. Duckworth cited one of the objectives, to “Develop innovative service delivery models to dramatically improve the outcomes of mental health services received in diverse communities and populations.” Dr. Duckworth explained, “Trying to solve for the problem in the context of an inadequate workforce that is insufficiently diverse – it just gets to something that I’m not sure would have been a priority in the past.

“That speaks to the awakening we’re having as a society. To address some of these historic and systemic injustices and how research can play into that is really important,” Dr. Duckworth added.

Overall, he saluted the plan and its goals. Dr. Duckworth added, “We gave some feedback that we wanted more emphasis on co-occurring disorders, such as research into people with mental health and addiction [issues] and on premature mortality. I think they took some of that feedback.”
 

Facing ‘significant challenges’

The plan “faces key challenges, such as rising suicide rates, high stigma, and social drivers of mental illnesses,” Dr. Weine added. “It sets a path for scientific advances that are responsive to these problems.” 

“The future is bright. Looking forward to the next 5 years and beyond, the new NIMH Strategic Plan for Research aims to build on these advances,” Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD, NIMH director, noted in his Director’s Messages blog.

“Nonetheless, we face significant challenges,” he adds. “Studies of the origins of mental illnesses suggest that a combination of causes – genetic, environmental, social, and psychological – act on the brain through a complex web of interactions, resulting in a set of heterogeneous and overlapping illnesses.”

“My hope is that the actual funding of research over the coming years reflects the comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary characteristics of this strategic plan,” Dr. Weine said.

The NIMH plans to its post progress for each goal on an ongoing basis on the Strategic Plan website.

Dr. Alpert, Dr. Galynker, Dr. Weine, and Dr. Duckworth had no relevant disclosures.

The National Institute of Mental Health’s 2020 Strategic Plan outlines priorities in basic science research and clinical trials for psychiatry over the next 5 years, emphasizing where advances are needed in suicide prevention, digital health technology, early diagnosis in psychosis, and much more.

Experts’ reaction to the strategic plan is mixed. Some applaud the NIMH for addressing many essential research priorities and for returning a balance to the focus on basic/translational research and clinical advances. Others would have liked to see a different emphasis on some components of the plan.
 

Focusing on diversity

A greater weight on research in diverse populations and a renewed focus on studies across the lifespan – including developmental origins of psychiatric illness – are among the novel aspects of the plan.

“The enhanced attention to recruiting diverse subjects and focusing on diversity in our research is new and very welcome,” Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Research, said in an interview.

Addressing the entire lifespan is likewise important, added Dr. Alpert, who holds the Dorothy and Marty Silverman Chair of Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. “Many of the conditions we treat – whether they are mood disorders or even dementia– might have developmental origins that would be best studied early in life.”

Furthermore, the plan promotes more interdisciplinary collaboration. For example, there are new cross-cutting research themes, including prevention, environmental influences, global health, and more. These are areas where psychiatry needs strengthening, said Stevan M. Weine, MD, director of Global Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in an interview.

In the era of COVID-19, which will involve ongoing diseases and disasters such as those tied to climate changes and disparities, there will be a need to conduct research and train researchers who are more open to new research questions, said Dr. Weine, also director of the Center for Global Health and professor of psychiatry at the university. It also will be important to partner with researchers from multiple disciplines, he added.

The plan also recognizes novel applications of digital technology. In addition, the plan outlines the promise of “harnessing the power of data,” such as machine learning, to help identify suicide risk factors based on large data, for example. However, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, predicted that this technology will likely identify factors that “we see again and again,” such as depression, other forms of mental illness, and previous attempt history.

“Machine learning is useful but should not be emphasized” even if it is “technologically sexy and almost seductive,” Dr. Galynker, director of the Suicide Research & Prevention Laboratory at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.
 

Addressing suicide

The strategic plan places a renewed emphasis on suicide prevention. The report cites a “troubling rise in the national suicide rate.” The authors suggested expanding initial success with brief screening tools in emergency departments to other clinical settings. Furthermore, the report highlights evidence that pairing such screening with low-cost follow-up interventions, such as telephone calls, can reduce the number of suicide attempts the following year.

Widespread screening could help identify people at risk, but it relies on the honesty of self-reporting, Dr. Galynker said, adding that about 75% of people who end their own lives never disclose their plan to anyone. Furthermore, suicide intent can be very short-lived – a crisis lasting as little as 15 minutes for some – reducing the likelihood that routine screening will flag a person in crisis.

“What is missing is an individual approach,” Dr. Galynker said while also endorsing the systemic approach to suicide prevention in the plan. “One thing in the strategic plan I may not agree with is the emphasis on administrative prediction measures ... based on drop-down menus and risk factors, and not on patient stories.” Risk factors are useful for long-term or lifetime risk, but they are not going to predict who will switch to acute suicidal state in the next several days or hours.”

Instead, Dr. Galynker suggested screening people for suicide crisis syndrome, which is “a very defined, characteristic, reproducible, and importantly, treatable,” state.

Covering basic neuroscience

Suicide prevention is just one of seven challenges and opportunities highlighted in the strategic plan. The authors also address research priorities for early treatment of psychosis and for research into mental health equity, HIV/AIDS research, genetics, and neural circuits.

“My overall impression is it’s very positive,” said Dr. Alpert, who is also professor and chair of the psychiatry and behavioral sciences department at Albert Einstein. “It really spans basic and translational neuroscience all the way to health services research and health disparities research. And I think, for many of us, we welcome that. It feels very relevant to the broad span of meaningful psychiatric research.”

Dr. Weine agreed. The strategic plan is “very helpful,” he said. “It is comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary.”
 

Promoting four overall goals

The plan seeks to promote the four following goals:

• Define the brain mechanisms underlying complex behaviors.
• Examine mental illness trajectories across the lifespan.
• Strive for prevention and cures.
• Strengthen the public health effects of National Institutes of Health–supported research.

The first goal is “an effort to try to make sense of the underlying biology, and that has to be your foundation point,” Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer at the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Arlington, Va., said in an interview. “The reason we don’t have a lot of new drug discovery is because the fundamentals of biology still need understanding. It’s a long-term goal, so it’s hard,” he added. “Everyone living with someone in their life with an illness wants better ideas now.”

The third goal is likewise challenging, Dr. Duckworth said. “That is optimistic and ... aspirational, but very important and valuable.”

Developing innovative models

Regarding the public health goal, Dr. Duckworth cited one of the objectives, to “Develop innovative service delivery models to dramatically improve the outcomes of mental health services received in diverse communities and populations.” Dr. Duckworth explained, “Trying to solve for the problem in the context of an inadequate workforce that is insufficiently diverse – it just gets to something that I’m not sure would have been a priority in the past.

“That speaks to the awakening we’re having as a society. To address some of these historic and systemic injustices and how research can play into that is really important,” Dr. Duckworth added.

Overall, he saluted the plan and its goals. Dr. Duckworth added, “We gave some feedback that we wanted more emphasis on co-occurring disorders, such as research into people with mental health and addiction [issues] and on premature mortality. I think they took some of that feedback.”
 

Facing ‘significant challenges’

The plan “faces key challenges, such as rising suicide rates, high stigma, and social drivers of mental illnesses,” Dr. Weine added. “It sets a path for scientific advances that are responsive to these problems.” 

“The future is bright. Looking forward to the next 5 years and beyond, the new NIMH Strategic Plan for Research aims to build on these advances,” Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD, NIMH director, noted in his Director’s Messages blog.

“Nonetheless, we face significant challenges,” he adds. “Studies of the origins of mental illnesses suggest that a combination of causes – genetic, environmental, social, and psychological – act on the brain through a complex web of interactions, resulting in a set of heterogeneous and overlapping illnesses.”

“My hope is that the actual funding of research over the coming years reflects the comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary characteristics of this strategic plan,” Dr. Weine said.

The NIMH plans to its post progress for each goal on an ongoing basis on the Strategic Plan website.

Dr. Alpert, Dr. Galynker, Dr. Weine, and Dr. Duckworth had no relevant disclosures.

The National Institute of Mental Health’s 2020 Strategic Plan outlines priorities in basic science research and clinical trials for psychiatry over the next 5 years, emphasizing where advances are needed in suicide prevention, digital health technology, early diagnosis in psychosis, and much more.

Experts’ reaction to the strategic plan is mixed. Some applaud the NIMH for addressing many essential research priorities and for returning a balance to the focus on basic/translational research and clinical advances. Others would have liked to see a different emphasis on some components of the plan.
 

Focusing on diversity

A greater weight on research in diverse populations and a renewed focus on studies across the lifespan – including developmental origins of psychiatric illness – are among the novel aspects of the plan.

“The enhanced attention to recruiting diverse subjects and focusing on diversity in our research is new and very welcome,” Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Research, said in an interview.

Addressing the entire lifespan is likewise important, added Dr. Alpert, who holds the Dorothy and Marty Silverman Chair of Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. “Many of the conditions we treat – whether they are mood disorders or even dementia– might have developmental origins that would be best studied early in life.”

Furthermore, the plan promotes more interdisciplinary collaboration. For example, there are new cross-cutting research themes, including prevention, environmental influences, global health, and more. These are areas where psychiatry needs strengthening, said Stevan M. Weine, MD, director of Global Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in an interview.

In the era of COVID-19, which will involve ongoing diseases and disasters such as those tied to climate changes and disparities, there will be a need to conduct research and train researchers who are more open to new research questions, said Dr. Weine, also director of the Center for Global Health and professor of psychiatry at the university. It also will be important to partner with researchers from multiple disciplines, he added.

The plan also recognizes novel applications of digital technology. In addition, the plan outlines the promise of “harnessing the power of data,” such as machine learning, to help identify suicide risk factors based on large data, for example. However, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, predicted that this technology will likely identify factors that “we see again and again,” such as depression, other forms of mental illness, and previous attempt history.

“Machine learning is useful but should not be emphasized” even if it is “technologically sexy and almost seductive,” Dr. Galynker, director of the Suicide Research & Prevention Laboratory at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.
 

Addressing suicide

The strategic plan places a renewed emphasis on suicide prevention. The report cites a “troubling rise in the national suicide rate.” The authors suggested expanding initial success with brief screening tools in emergency departments to other clinical settings. Furthermore, the report highlights evidence that pairing such screening with low-cost follow-up interventions, such as telephone calls, can reduce the number of suicide attempts the following year.

Widespread screening could help identify people at risk, but it relies on the honesty of self-reporting, Dr. Galynker said, adding that about 75% of people who end their own lives never disclose their plan to anyone. Furthermore, suicide intent can be very short-lived – a crisis lasting as little as 15 minutes for some – reducing the likelihood that routine screening will flag a person in crisis.

“What is missing is an individual approach,” Dr. Galynker said while also endorsing the systemic approach to suicide prevention in the plan. “One thing in the strategic plan I may not agree with is the emphasis on administrative prediction measures ... based on drop-down menus and risk factors, and not on patient stories.” Risk factors are useful for long-term or lifetime risk, but they are not going to predict who will switch to acute suicidal state in the next several days or hours.”

Instead, Dr. Galynker suggested screening people for suicide crisis syndrome, which is “a very defined, characteristic, reproducible, and importantly, treatable,” state.

Covering basic neuroscience

Suicide prevention is just one of seven challenges and opportunities highlighted in the strategic plan. The authors also address research priorities for early treatment of psychosis and for research into mental health equity, HIV/AIDS research, genetics, and neural circuits.

“My overall impression is it’s very positive,” said Dr. Alpert, who is also professor and chair of the psychiatry and behavioral sciences department at Albert Einstein. “It really spans basic and translational neuroscience all the way to health services research and health disparities research. And I think, for many of us, we welcome that. It feels very relevant to the broad span of meaningful psychiatric research.”

Dr. Weine agreed. The strategic plan is “very helpful,” he said. “It is comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary.”
 

Promoting four overall goals

The plan seeks to promote the four following goals:

• Define the brain mechanisms underlying complex behaviors.
• Examine mental illness trajectories across the lifespan.
• Strive for prevention and cures.
• Strengthen the public health effects of National Institutes of Health–supported research.

The first goal is “an effort to try to make sense of the underlying biology, and that has to be your foundation point,” Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer at the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Arlington, Va., said in an interview. “The reason we don’t have a lot of new drug discovery is because the fundamentals of biology still need understanding. It’s a long-term goal, so it’s hard,” he added. “Everyone living with someone in their life with an illness wants better ideas now.”

The third goal is likewise challenging, Dr. Duckworth said. “That is optimistic and ... aspirational, but very important and valuable.”

Developing innovative models

Regarding the public health goal, Dr. Duckworth cited one of the objectives, to “Develop innovative service delivery models to dramatically improve the outcomes of mental health services received in diverse communities and populations.” Dr. Duckworth explained, “Trying to solve for the problem in the context of an inadequate workforce that is insufficiently diverse – it just gets to something that I’m not sure would have been a priority in the past.

“That speaks to the awakening we’re having as a society. To address some of these historic and systemic injustices and how research can play into that is really important,” Dr. Duckworth added.

Overall, he saluted the plan and its goals. Dr. Duckworth added, “We gave some feedback that we wanted more emphasis on co-occurring disorders, such as research into people with mental health and addiction [issues] and on premature mortality. I think they took some of that feedback.”
 

Facing ‘significant challenges’

The plan “faces key challenges, such as rising suicide rates, high stigma, and social drivers of mental illnesses,” Dr. Weine added. “It sets a path for scientific advances that are responsive to these problems.” 

“The future is bright. Looking forward to the next 5 years and beyond, the new NIMH Strategic Plan for Research aims to build on these advances,” Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD, NIMH director, noted in his Director’s Messages blog.

“Nonetheless, we face significant challenges,” he adds. “Studies of the origins of mental illnesses suggest that a combination of causes – genetic, environmental, social, and psychological – act on the brain through a complex web of interactions, resulting in a set of heterogeneous and overlapping illnesses.”

“My hope is that the actual funding of research over the coming years reflects the comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary characteristics of this strategic plan,” Dr. Weine said.

The NIMH plans to its post progress for each goal on an ongoing basis on the Strategic Plan website.

Dr. Alpert, Dr. Galynker, Dr. Weine, and Dr. Duckworth had no relevant disclosures.

Food allergies among 6- to 10-year-olds may be less common than previously reported, researchers found in a multinational study of European school-age children.

The prevalence was as low as 1.4% and as high as 3.8% using different research methods, and most likely falls somewhere in between. The findings were “considerably lower” than the 16% rate based on parental reports of symptoms such as rash, itching, or diarrhea, Linus Grabenhenrich, MD, MPH, and colleagues reported in Allergy.

In addition, peanut and hazelnut allergens were most common among the 223 children with a positive skin prick allergy assay. A total 5.6% tested sensitive to peanuts and 5.2% to hazelnuts.

Previous research reports of pediatric food allergy prevalence were largely single-center studies with heterogeneous designs, the researchers noted. These prior protocols make comparisons across countries challenging.

In search of a more definitive answer, Dr. Grabenhenrich, of the Robert Koch-Institut in Berlin, and colleagues evaluated 238 children. This group was about 10% of 2,288 children with parental face-to-face interviews and/or skin prick testing from a birth cohort in Germany, Greece, Iceland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and United Kingdom called the EuroPrevall-iFAAM.

All participants had suspected food allergies, and the mean age at follow-up was 8 years. A total 46 children participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food allergy challenge (DBPCFC). “Most of the positively challenged children reacted only mildly or moderately, except for five children with severe signs or symptoms during DBPCFC,” Dr. Grabenhenrich and associates noted.

A food allergy to at least one allergen was confirmed in 17 children out of 2,097 who completed assessment. This yielded an average raw prevalence of 0.8% across all eight countries. The estimated 1.4%-3.8% food allergy prevalence was based on adjusted analyses that extrapolated findings to all children with questionnaire data or who completed an eligibility assessment.

“Considerable attrition” in all stages of the assessment was a potential limitation. In addition, 192 parents refused to participate in the DBPCFC food challenge component of the research. Studying a birth cohort across European countries was a study strength.

The European Commission supported this study. Dr. Grabenhenrich had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported various ties to pharmaceutical and food companies.

SOURCE: Grabenhenrich L et al. Allergy. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/all.14290.
 

Food allergies among 6- to 10-year-olds may be less common than previously reported, researchers found in a multinational study of European school-age children.

The prevalence was as low as 1.4% and as high as 3.8% using different research methods, and most likely falls somewhere in between. The findings were “considerably lower” than the 16% rate based on parental reports of symptoms such as rash, itching, or diarrhea, Linus Grabenhenrich, MD, MPH, and colleagues reported in Allergy.

In addition, peanut and hazelnut allergens were most common among the 223 children with a positive skin prick allergy assay. A total 5.6% tested sensitive to peanuts and 5.2% to hazelnuts.

Previous research reports of pediatric food allergy prevalence were largely single-center studies with heterogeneous designs, the researchers noted. These prior protocols make comparisons across countries challenging.

In search of a more definitive answer, Dr. Grabenhenrich, of the Robert Koch-Institut in Berlin, and colleagues evaluated 238 children. This group was about 10% of 2,288 children with parental face-to-face interviews and/or skin prick testing from a birth cohort in Germany, Greece, Iceland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and United Kingdom called the EuroPrevall-iFAAM.

All participants had suspected food allergies, and the mean age at follow-up was 8 years. A total 46 children participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food allergy challenge (DBPCFC). “Most of the positively challenged children reacted only mildly or moderately, except for five children with severe signs or symptoms during DBPCFC,” Dr. Grabenhenrich and associates noted.

A food allergy to at least one allergen was confirmed in 17 children out of 2,097 who completed assessment. This yielded an average raw prevalence of 0.8% across all eight countries. The estimated 1.4%-3.8% food allergy prevalence was based on adjusted analyses that extrapolated findings to all children with questionnaire data or who completed an eligibility assessment.

“Considerable attrition” in all stages of the assessment was a potential limitation. In addition, 192 parents refused to participate in the DBPCFC food challenge component of the research. Studying a birth cohort across European countries was a study strength.

The European Commission supported this study. Dr. Grabenhenrich had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported various ties to pharmaceutical and food companies.

SOURCE: Grabenhenrich L et al. Allergy. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/all.14290.
 

Food allergies among 6- to 10-year-olds may be less common than previously reported, researchers found in a multinational study of European school-age children.

The prevalence was as low as 1.4% and as high as 3.8% using different research methods, and most likely falls somewhere in between. The findings were “considerably lower” than the 16% rate based on parental reports of symptoms such as rash, itching, or diarrhea, Linus Grabenhenrich, MD, MPH, and colleagues reported in Allergy.

In addition, peanut and hazelnut allergens were most common among the 223 children with a positive skin prick allergy assay. A total 5.6% tested sensitive to peanuts and 5.2% to hazelnuts.

Previous research reports of pediatric food allergy prevalence were largely single-center studies with heterogeneous designs, the researchers noted. These prior protocols make comparisons across countries challenging.

In search of a more definitive answer, Dr. Grabenhenrich, of the Robert Koch-Institut in Berlin, and colleagues evaluated 238 children. This group was about 10% of 2,288 children with parental face-to-face interviews and/or skin prick testing from a birth cohort in Germany, Greece, Iceland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and United Kingdom called the EuroPrevall-iFAAM.

All participants had suspected food allergies, and the mean age at follow-up was 8 years. A total 46 children participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food allergy challenge (DBPCFC). “Most of the positively challenged children reacted only mildly or moderately, except for five children with severe signs or symptoms during DBPCFC,” Dr. Grabenhenrich and associates noted.

A food allergy to at least one allergen was confirmed in 17 children out of 2,097 who completed assessment. This yielded an average raw prevalence of 0.8% across all eight countries. The estimated 1.4%-3.8% food allergy prevalence was based on adjusted analyses that extrapolated findings to all children with questionnaire data or who completed an eligibility assessment.

“Considerable attrition” in all stages of the assessment was a potential limitation. In addition, 192 parents refused to participate in the DBPCFC food challenge component of the research. Studying a birth cohort across European countries was a study strength.

The European Commission supported this study. Dr. Grabenhenrich had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported various ties to pharmaceutical and food companies.

SOURCE: Grabenhenrich L et al. Allergy. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/all.14290.
 

Maternal vascular malperfusion and intervillous thrombi were more common in the placentas of women infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with historic controls, report researchers who conducted the first-of-its-kind case series in the English literature. Nevertheless, the neonates in the report appear to be healthy so far and all tested negative for the virus.

Although the series examining placentas from 16 women is small, it carries a larger implication – that increased antenatal surveillance for pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be indicated, the researchers noted.

Furthermore, the results could align with other reports of coagulation and vascular abnormalities among people with COVID-19. “I would say that our findings fit into that larger picture of vascular injury. This is developing, and there are some significant ways that these feeder vessels to the placenta are different, but if this is the emerging paradigm, our findings can fit into it,” Jeffrey A. Goldstein, MD, PhD, assistant professor of pathology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

The research was published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

Prior case series reported in Wuhan, China, do not currently suggest that pregnant women are more likely to experience severe COVID-19, in contrast to observations during severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreaks. “However,” the researchers noted, “adverse perinatal outcomes have been reported, including increased risks of miscarriage, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and stillbirth.”

To learn more, Dr. Goldstein, lead author Elisheva D. Shanes, MD, and colleagues examined the histology of placentas from women with COVID-19 giving birth between March 18 and May 5, 2020. They compared these placentas with over 17,000 historic controls and 215 women who had their placentas evaluated as part of a melanoma history study.

A total of 10 women were diagnosed with COVID-19 upon presentation to labor and delivery, 4 others were diagnosed approximately 1 month before delivery and the remaining 2 within 1 week of delivery. Ten of the patients were symptomatic and two required oxygen. None of the patients received intubation or died. A total of 14 patients delivered at term, 1 delivered at 34 weeks, and the remaining case experienced a 16-week intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD). The IUFD was excluded from subsequent statistical analysis.

The neonates each had a 5-minute Apgar score of 9. Most infants were discharged on the first or second day of life, and there were no neonatal deaths.
 

Key findings

Of the 15 placentas, 12 featured maternal vascular malperfusion. This rate was significantly higher than historic controls (P = .046) and melanoma study controls (P = .001).

Specific features varied between groups, with decidual arteriopathy, atherosis and fibrinoid necrosis of maternal vessels, and mural hypertrophy of membrane arterioles observed more often in COVID-19 cases than in all historical controls. In addition, peripheral infarctions, decidual arteriopathy, atherosis, and fibrinoid necrosis, and mural hypertrophy being more common in COVID-19 cases than in placentas of women with a history of melanoma.

In contrast, features of fetal vascular malperfusion were observed in 12 of 15 cases, but not at rates significantly different from the control groups. Chorangiosis, villous edema, and intervillous thrombi also were more common in the COVID-19 cohort.

Dr. Goldstein was surprised they did not observe much acute or chronic inflammation. “We see chronic inflammation in the placenta in response to many viruses, such as cytomegalovirus, so you might expect similar findings, but we didn’t see any increase above the controls.”

There are a couple of case reports of histiocytic intervillositis – a particularly severe form of chronic inflammation – associated with COVID-19, “but we didn’t see that in our study,” he added.
 

Clinical implications

The healthy neonatal outcomes reported in the study occurred despite the placental injury, which may be caused by the redundancy built into placentas for delivering oxygen and nutrients and for removing waste.

The negative COVID-19 test results in all infants also supports existing evidence that vertical transmission of the virus is uncommon. The finding also suggests that any damage to the placenta is likely related to maternal infection.

Only one mother in the COVID-19 cohort was hypertensive, which surprised the researchers because intervillous thrombi have been associated with maternal high blood pressure. “In the context of research suggesting an increase of thrombotic and thromboembolic disorders in COVID-19,” the researchers noted, “these may represent placental formation or deposition of thrombi in response to the virus.”

One of the priorities for the researchers going forward is to monitor the longer-term outcomes of the infants, Dr. Goldstein said. “We know the people in utero during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic had higher rates of heart disease and other long-term problems, so we want to be on the lookout for something similar.”
 

Valuable insight

“This is a comprehensive case series of this topic, with findings worth noting and sharing in a timely fashion,” Karen Mestan, MD, associate professor of pediatrics within the division of neonatology at Northwestern University, said when asked to comment on the study.

“The information is valuable to neonatologists as the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 exposure on newborn infants are still largely unknown,” she added. “Details of placental pathology provide emerging insight and may help us understand mother-baby vertical transmission during the current pandemic.”

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Mestan had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Shanes ED et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa089.

Maternal vascular malperfusion and intervillous thrombi were more common in the placentas of women infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with historic controls, report researchers who conducted the first-of-its-kind case series in the English literature. Nevertheless, the neonates in the report appear to be healthy so far and all tested negative for the virus.

Although the series examining placentas from 16 women is small, it carries a larger implication – that increased antenatal surveillance for pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be indicated, the researchers noted.

Furthermore, the results could align with other reports of coagulation and vascular abnormalities among people with COVID-19. “I would say that our findings fit into that larger picture of vascular injury. This is developing, and there are some significant ways that these feeder vessels to the placenta are different, but if this is the emerging paradigm, our findings can fit into it,” Jeffrey A. Goldstein, MD, PhD, assistant professor of pathology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

The research was published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

Prior case series reported in Wuhan, China, do not currently suggest that pregnant women are more likely to experience severe COVID-19, in contrast to observations during severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreaks. “However,” the researchers noted, “adverse perinatal outcomes have been reported, including increased risks of miscarriage, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and stillbirth.”

To learn more, Dr. Goldstein, lead author Elisheva D. Shanes, MD, and colleagues examined the histology of placentas from women with COVID-19 giving birth between March 18 and May 5, 2020. They compared these placentas with over 17,000 historic controls and 215 women who had their placentas evaluated as part of a melanoma history study.

A total of 10 women were diagnosed with COVID-19 upon presentation to labor and delivery, 4 others were diagnosed approximately 1 month before delivery and the remaining 2 within 1 week of delivery. Ten of the patients were symptomatic and two required oxygen. None of the patients received intubation or died. A total of 14 patients delivered at term, 1 delivered at 34 weeks, and the remaining case experienced a 16-week intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD). The IUFD was excluded from subsequent statistical analysis.

The neonates each had a 5-minute Apgar score of 9. Most infants were discharged on the first or second day of life, and there were no neonatal deaths.
 

Key findings

Of the 15 placentas, 12 featured maternal vascular malperfusion. This rate was significantly higher than historic controls (P = .046) and melanoma study controls (P = .001).

Specific features varied between groups, with decidual arteriopathy, atherosis and fibrinoid necrosis of maternal vessels, and mural hypertrophy of membrane arterioles observed more often in COVID-19 cases than in all historical controls. In addition, peripheral infarctions, decidual arteriopathy, atherosis, and fibrinoid necrosis, and mural hypertrophy being more common in COVID-19 cases than in placentas of women with a history of melanoma.

In contrast, features of fetal vascular malperfusion were observed in 12 of 15 cases, but not at rates significantly different from the control groups. Chorangiosis, villous edema, and intervillous thrombi also were more common in the COVID-19 cohort.

Dr. Goldstein was surprised they did not observe much acute or chronic inflammation. “We see chronic inflammation in the placenta in response to many viruses, such as cytomegalovirus, so you might expect similar findings, but we didn’t see any increase above the controls.”

There are a couple of case reports of histiocytic intervillositis – a particularly severe form of chronic inflammation – associated with COVID-19, “but we didn’t see that in our study,” he added.
 

Clinical implications

The healthy neonatal outcomes reported in the study occurred despite the placental injury, which may be caused by the redundancy built into placentas for delivering oxygen and nutrients and for removing waste.

The negative COVID-19 test results in all infants also supports existing evidence that vertical transmission of the virus is uncommon. The finding also suggests that any damage to the placenta is likely related to maternal infection.

Only one mother in the COVID-19 cohort was hypertensive, which surprised the researchers because intervillous thrombi have been associated with maternal high blood pressure. “In the context of research suggesting an increase of thrombotic and thromboembolic disorders in COVID-19,” the researchers noted, “these may represent placental formation or deposition of thrombi in response to the virus.”

One of the priorities for the researchers going forward is to monitor the longer-term outcomes of the infants, Dr. Goldstein said. “We know the people in utero during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic had higher rates of heart disease and other long-term problems, so we want to be on the lookout for something similar.”
 

Valuable insight

“This is a comprehensive case series of this topic, with findings worth noting and sharing in a timely fashion,” Karen Mestan, MD, associate professor of pediatrics within the division of neonatology at Northwestern University, said when asked to comment on the study.

“The information is valuable to neonatologists as the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 exposure on newborn infants are still largely unknown,” she added. “Details of placental pathology provide emerging insight and may help us understand mother-baby vertical transmission during the current pandemic.”

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Mestan had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Shanes ED et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa089.

Maternal vascular malperfusion and intervillous thrombi were more common in the placentas of women infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with historic controls, report researchers who conducted the first-of-its-kind case series in the English literature. Nevertheless, the neonates in the report appear to be healthy so far and all tested negative for the virus.

Although the series examining placentas from 16 women is small, it carries a larger implication – that increased antenatal surveillance for pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be indicated, the researchers noted.

Furthermore, the results could align with other reports of coagulation and vascular abnormalities among people with COVID-19. “I would say that our findings fit into that larger picture of vascular injury. This is developing, and there are some significant ways that these feeder vessels to the placenta are different, but if this is the emerging paradigm, our findings can fit into it,” Jeffrey A. Goldstein, MD, PhD, assistant professor of pathology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

The research was published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

Prior case series reported in Wuhan, China, do not currently suggest that pregnant women are more likely to experience severe COVID-19, in contrast to observations during severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreaks. “However,” the researchers noted, “adverse perinatal outcomes have been reported, including increased risks of miscarriage, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and stillbirth.”

To learn more, Dr. Goldstein, lead author Elisheva D. Shanes, MD, and colleagues examined the histology of placentas from women with COVID-19 giving birth between March 18 and May 5, 2020. They compared these placentas with over 17,000 historic controls and 215 women who had their placentas evaluated as part of a melanoma history study.

A total of 10 women were diagnosed with COVID-19 upon presentation to labor and delivery, 4 others were diagnosed approximately 1 month before delivery and the remaining 2 within 1 week of delivery. Ten of the patients were symptomatic and two required oxygen. None of the patients received intubation or died. A total of 14 patients delivered at term, 1 delivered at 34 weeks, and the remaining case experienced a 16-week intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD). The IUFD was excluded from subsequent statistical analysis.

The neonates each had a 5-minute Apgar score of 9. Most infants were discharged on the first or second day of life, and there were no neonatal deaths.
 

Key findings

Of the 15 placentas, 12 featured maternal vascular malperfusion. This rate was significantly higher than historic controls (P = .046) and melanoma study controls (P = .001).

Specific features varied between groups, with decidual arteriopathy, atherosis and fibrinoid necrosis of maternal vessels, and mural hypertrophy of membrane arterioles observed more often in COVID-19 cases than in all historical controls. In addition, peripheral infarctions, decidual arteriopathy, atherosis, and fibrinoid necrosis, and mural hypertrophy being more common in COVID-19 cases than in placentas of women with a history of melanoma.

In contrast, features of fetal vascular malperfusion were observed in 12 of 15 cases, but not at rates significantly different from the control groups. Chorangiosis, villous edema, and intervillous thrombi also were more common in the COVID-19 cohort.

Dr. Goldstein was surprised they did not observe much acute or chronic inflammation. “We see chronic inflammation in the placenta in response to many viruses, such as cytomegalovirus, so you might expect similar findings, but we didn’t see any increase above the controls.”

There are a couple of case reports of histiocytic intervillositis – a particularly severe form of chronic inflammation – associated with COVID-19, “but we didn’t see that in our study,” he added.
 

Clinical implications

The healthy neonatal outcomes reported in the study occurred despite the placental injury, which may be caused by the redundancy built into placentas for delivering oxygen and nutrients and for removing waste.

The negative COVID-19 test results in all infants also supports existing evidence that vertical transmission of the virus is uncommon. The finding also suggests that any damage to the placenta is likely related to maternal infection.

Only one mother in the COVID-19 cohort was hypertensive, which surprised the researchers because intervillous thrombi have been associated with maternal high blood pressure. “In the context of research suggesting an increase of thrombotic and thromboembolic disorders in COVID-19,” the researchers noted, “these may represent placental formation or deposition of thrombi in response to the virus.”

One of the priorities for the researchers going forward is to monitor the longer-term outcomes of the infants, Dr. Goldstein said. “We know the people in utero during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic had higher rates of heart disease and other long-term problems, so we want to be on the lookout for something similar.”
 

Valuable insight

“This is a comprehensive case series of this topic, with findings worth noting and sharing in a timely fashion,” Karen Mestan, MD, associate professor of pediatrics within the division of neonatology at Northwestern University, said when asked to comment on the study.

“The information is valuable to neonatologists as the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 exposure on newborn infants are still largely unknown,” she added. “Details of placental pathology provide emerging insight and may help us understand mother-baby vertical transmission during the current pandemic.”

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Mestan had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Shanes ED et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa089.

High-dose aducanumab, a human monoclonal antibody in development, significantly reduced clinical decline in people with early Alzheimer’s disease in one randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study but not in another identical study. Aducanumab was associated with favorable changes in activities of daily living and in Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers.

The EMERGE and ENGAGE studies compared low-dose and high-dose aducanumab and placebo over 78 weeks. The high-dose EMERGE cohort experienced a 22% improvement in the primary outcome – adjusted mean Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Box (CDR-SB) scores – compared with baseline.

“We have with EMERGE, in the high-dose group, a positive result,” said lead author Samantha Budd Haeberlein, PhD, who presented this research online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

In contrast, the low-dose EMERGE group, as well as the low-dose and high-dose cohorts in the ENGAGE study, experienced no statistically significant change in CDR-SB outcomes.

Clinical benefit was associated with the degree of exposure to aducanumab. For example, a protocol adjustment during the study increased the mean dose of aducanumab, a move associated with better outcomes.

“We believe that the difference between the results was largely due to patients’ greater exposure to the high dose of aducanumab,” Dr. Haerberlein, senior vice president and head of the neurodegeneration development unit at Biogen in Cambridge, Mass., said in an interview.

Although the studies shared an identical design, “because ENGAGE began enrolling first and recruitment remained ahead of EMERGE, more patients in EMERGE were impacted by the protocol amendments, which we believe resulted in a higher number of patients exposed to the highest dose in EMERGE versus ENGAGE,” Dr. Haerberlein added.

The EMERGE and ENGAGE studies were conducted at 348 sites in 20 countries. The research included a total of 3,285 participants with mild cognitive impairment caused by Alzheimer’s disease or mild Alzheimer’s disease dementia.

The mean age was 70 years, about 52% were women, and slightly more than half had a history of taking medication for Alzheimer’s disease. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 26 at baseline.
 

Key findings

Dr. Haerberlein and colleagues reported that the 22% decrease in CDR-SB scores in the high-dose EMERGE participants was significant (P = .01). No significant difference emerged, however, in the ENGAGE study, where high-dose participants had a 2% decrease at 78 weeks in CDR-SB scores (P = .83).

The high-dose EMERGE regimen was also associated with an 18% improvement in MMSE scores (P < .05). In the ENGAGE study, the high-dose MMSE scores increased a nonsignificant 3% (P = .81).

The researchers reported no significant differences in the low-dose cohorts in both studies regarding CDR-SB or MMSE scores at week 78, compared with baseline.

They also assessed amyloid using PET scans. Levels remained essentially the same throughout both studies in the placebo participants. In contrast, there was a statistically significant, dose- and time-dependent reduction associated with both low- and high-dose aducanumab.

Aducanumab treatment was associated with significant benefits on measures of cognition and function such as memory, orientation, and language, Dr. Haeberlein said. “Patients also experienced benefits on activities of daily living including conducting personal finances; performing household chores such as cleaning, shopping, and doing laundry; and independently traveling out of the home.”

Furthermore, reductions in the CSF biomarker phospho-tau in the high-dose EMERGE and ENGAGE cohorts were statistically significant. In contrast, changes in total tau were not significant.

The proportion of patients who experienced an adverse event during EMERGE was similar across groups – 92% of the high-dose group, 88% of the low-dose group, and 87% of the placebo cohort. Similar rates were reported in the ENGAGE high-dose, 90%; low-dose, 90%; and placebo cohorts, 86%.

Adverse events reported in more than 10% of participants included headache, nasopharyngitis, and two forms of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), one of which related to edema (ARIA-E) and the other to hemosiderosis (ARIA-H).
 

Future plans

Going forward, the researchers are conducting a redosing study to offer aducanumab to all participants in the clinical trials. Also, Biogen is completing the filing of a Biologics License Application with the Food and Drug Administration and with regulatory agencies in other countries.

Early identification and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease remains a priority, Dr. Haeberlein said, because it offers an opportunity to begin health measures like exercise, mental activity, and social engagement; allows people more time to plan for the future; and gives families and loved ones’ time to prepare and support each other. From a research perspective, early identification of this population can maximize chances of participation in a clinical trial as well.
 

Unanswered questions

“Briefly, while both [studies] were looking at aducanumab’s effect on rate of decline across a variety of measures, one statistically showed a positive impact in a subset and the other did not,” Richard J. Caselli, MD, said when asked to comment on the EMERGE and ENGAGE findings. “The subset were the mildest affected patients on the highest dose for the longest time.”

The main difference between the two studies was that one was adequately powered for this subanalysis and the other was not. Even the underpowered subanalysis showed a beneficial trend, added Dr. Caselli, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona.

Dr. Caselli said these findings raise a number of unanswered questions. For example, is a subanalysis valid? Is the degree of improvement clinically meaningful or meaningful enough to justify the anticipated cost of the drug itself – “likely to be very expensive” plus the “cost and hassle” of monthly IV infusions? Is there enough provider and infusion center capacity going forward? What will the reimbursement from third party payers be like?

Biogen sponsored the EMERGE and ENGAGE studies. Dr. Haeberlein is a Biogen employee. Dr. Caselli had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Haeberlein SB et al. AAN 2020, Abstract 46977.

High-dose aducanumab, a human monoclonal antibody in development, significantly reduced clinical decline in people with early Alzheimer’s disease in one randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study but not in another identical study. Aducanumab was associated with favorable changes in activities of daily living and in Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers.

The EMERGE and ENGAGE studies compared low-dose and high-dose aducanumab and placebo over 78 weeks. The high-dose EMERGE cohort experienced a 22% improvement in the primary outcome – adjusted mean Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Box (CDR-SB) scores – compared with baseline.

“We have with EMERGE, in the high-dose group, a positive result,” said lead author Samantha Budd Haeberlein, PhD, who presented this research online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

In contrast, the low-dose EMERGE group, as well as the low-dose and high-dose cohorts in the ENGAGE study, experienced no statistically significant change in CDR-SB outcomes.

Clinical benefit was associated with the degree of exposure to aducanumab. For example, a protocol adjustment during the study increased the mean dose of aducanumab, a move associated with better outcomes.

“We believe that the difference between the results was largely due to patients’ greater exposure to the high dose of aducanumab,” Dr. Haerberlein, senior vice president and head of the neurodegeneration development unit at Biogen in Cambridge, Mass., said in an interview.

Although the studies shared an identical design, “because ENGAGE began enrolling first and recruitment remained ahead of EMERGE, more patients in EMERGE were impacted by the protocol amendments, which we believe resulted in a higher number of patients exposed to the highest dose in EMERGE versus ENGAGE,” Dr. Haerberlein added.

The EMERGE and ENGAGE studies were conducted at 348 sites in 20 countries. The research included a total of 3,285 participants with mild cognitive impairment caused by Alzheimer’s disease or mild Alzheimer’s disease dementia.

The mean age was 70 years, about 52% were women, and slightly more than half had a history of taking medication for Alzheimer’s disease. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 26 at baseline.
 

Key findings

Dr. Haerberlein and colleagues reported that the 22% decrease in CDR-SB scores in the high-dose EMERGE participants was significant (P = .01). No significant difference emerged, however, in the ENGAGE study, where high-dose participants had a 2% decrease at 78 weeks in CDR-SB scores (P = .83).

The high-dose EMERGE regimen was also associated with an 18% improvement in MMSE scores (P < .05). In the ENGAGE study, the high-dose MMSE scores increased a nonsignificant 3% (P = .81).

The researchers reported no significant differences in the low-dose cohorts in both studies regarding CDR-SB or MMSE scores at week 78, compared with baseline.

They also assessed amyloid using PET scans. Levels remained essentially the same throughout both studies in the placebo participants. In contrast, there was a statistically significant, dose- and time-dependent reduction associated with both low- and high-dose aducanumab.

Aducanumab treatment was associated with significant benefits on measures of cognition and function such as memory, orientation, and language, Dr. Haeberlein said. “Patients also experienced benefits on activities of daily living including conducting personal finances; performing household chores such as cleaning, shopping, and doing laundry; and independently traveling out of the home.”

Furthermore, reductions in the CSF biomarker phospho-tau in the high-dose EMERGE and ENGAGE cohorts were statistically significant. In contrast, changes in total tau were not significant.

The proportion of patients who experienced an adverse event during EMERGE was similar across groups – 92% of the high-dose group, 88% of the low-dose group, and 87% of the placebo cohort. Similar rates were reported in the ENGAGE high-dose, 90%; low-dose, 90%; and placebo cohorts, 86%.

Adverse events reported in more than 10% of participants included headache, nasopharyngitis, and two forms of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), one of which related to edema (ARIA-E) and the other to hemosiderosis (ARIA-H).
 

Future plans

Going forward, the researchers are conducting a redosing study to offer aducanumab to all participants in the clinical trials. Also, Biogen is completing the filing of a Biologics License Application with the Food and Drug Administration and with regulatory agencies in other countries.

Early identification and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease remains a priority, Dr. Haeberlein said, because it offers an opportunity to begin health measures like exercise, mental activity, and social engagement; allows people more time to plan for the future; and gives families and loved ones’ time to prepare and support each other. From a research perspective, early identification of this population can maximize chances of participation in a clinical trial as well.
 

Unanswered questions

“Briefly, while both [studies] were looking at aducanumab’s effect on rate of decline across a variety of measures, one statistically showed a positive impact in a subset and the other did not,” Richard J. Caselli, MD, said when asked to comment on the EMERGE and ENGAGE findings. “The subset were the mildest affected patients on the highest dose for the longest time.”

The main difference between the two studies was that one was adequately powered for this subanalysis and the other was not. Even the underpowered subanalysis showed a beneficial trend, added Dr. Caselli, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona.

Dr. Caselli said these findings raise a number of unanswered questions. For example, is a subanalysis valid? Is the degree of improvement clinically meaningful or meaningful enough to justify the anticipated cost of the drug itself – “likely to be very expensive” plus the “cost and hassle” of monthly IV infusions? Is there enough provider and infusion center capacity going forward? What will the reimbursement from third party payers be like?

Biogen sponsored the EMERGE and ENGAGE studies. Dr. Haeberlein is a Biogen employee. Dr. Caselli had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Haeberlein SB et al. AAN 2020, Abstract 46977.

High-dose aducanumab, a human monoclonal antibody in development, significantly reduced clinical decline in people with early Alzheimer’s disease in one randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study but not in another identical study. Aducanumab was associated with favorable changes in activities of daily living and in Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers.

The EMERGE and ENGAGE studies compared low-dose and high-dose aducanumab and placebo over 78 weeks. The high-dose EMERGE cohort experienced a 22% improvement in the primary outcome – adjusted mean Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Box (CDR-SB) scores – compared with baseline.

“We have with EMERGE, in the high-dose group, a positive result,” said lead author Samantha Budd Haeberlein, PhD, who presented this research online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

In contrast, the low-dose EMERGE group, as well as the low-dose and high-dose cohorts in the ENGAGE study, experienced no statistically significant change in CDR-SB outcomes.

Clinical benefit was associated with the degree of exposure to aducanumab. For example, a protocol adjustment during the study increased the mean dose of aducanumab, a move associated with better outcomes.

“We believe that the difference between the results was largely due to patients’ greater exposure to the high dose of aducanumab,” Dr. Haerberlein, senior vice president and head of the neurodegeneration development unit at Biogen in Cambridge, Mass., said in an interview.

Although the studies shared an identical design, “because ENGAGE began enrolling first and recruitment remained ahead of EMERGE, more patients in EMERGE were impacted by the protocol amendments, which we believe resulted in a higher number of patients exposed to the highest dose in EMERGE versus ENGAGE,” Dr. Haerberlein added.

The EMERGE and ENGAGE studies were conducted at 348 sites in 20 countries. The research included a total of 3,285 participants with mild cognitive impairment caused by Alzheimer’s disease or mild Alzheimer’s disease dementia.

The mean age was 70 years, about 52% were women, and slightly more than half had a history of taking medication for Alzheimer’s disease. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 26 at baseline.
 

Key findings

Dr. Haerberlein and colleagues reported that the 22% decrease in CDR-SB scores in the high-dose EMERGE participants was significant (P = .01). No significant difference emerged, however, in the ENGAGE study, where high-dose participants had a 2% decrease at 78 weeks in CDR-SB scores (P = .83).

The high-dose EMERGE regimen was also associated with an 18% improvement in MMSE scores (P < .05). In the ENGAGE study, the high-dose MMSE scores increased a nonsignificant 3% (P = .81).

The researchers reported no significant differences in the low-dose cohorts in both studies regarding CDR-SB or MMSE scores at week 78, compared with baseline.

They also assessed amyloid using PET scans. Levels remained essentially the same throughout both studies in the placebo participants. In contrast, there was a statistically significant, dose- and time-dependent reduction associated with both low- and high-dose aducanumab.

Aducanumab treatment was associated with significant benefits on measures of cognition and function such as memory, orientation, and language, Dr. Haeberlein said. “Patients also experienced benefits on activities of daily living including conducting personal finances; performing household chores such as cleaning, shopping, and doing laundry; and independently traveling out of the home.”

Furthermore, reductions in the CSF biomarker phospho-tau in the high-dose EMERGE and ENGAGE cohorts were statistically significant. In contrast, changes in total tau were not significant.

The proportion of patients who experienced an adverse event during EMERGE was similar across groups – 92% of the high-dose group, 88% of the low-dose group, and 87% of the placebo cohort. Similar rates were reported in the ENGAGE high-dose, 90%; low-dose, 90%; and placebo cohorts, 86%.

Adverse events reported in more than 10% of participants included headache, nasopharyngitis, and two forms of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), one of which related to edema (ARIA-E) and the other to hemosiderosis (ARIA-H).
 

Future plans

Going forward, the researchers are conducting a redosing study to offer aducanumab to all participants in the clinical trials. Also, Biogen is completing the filing of a Biologics License Application with the Food and Drug Administration and with regulatory agencies in other countries.

Early identification and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease remains a priority, Dr. Haeberlein said, because it offers an opportunity to begin health measures like exercise, mental activity, and social engagement; allows people more time to plan for the future; and gives families and loved ones’ time to prepare and support each other. From a research perspective, early identification of this population can maximize chances of participation in a clinical trial as well.
 

Unanswered questions

“Briefly, while both [studies] were looking at aducanumab’s effect on rate of decline across a variety of measures, one statistically showed a positive impact in a subset and the other did not,” Richard J. Caselli, MD, said when asked to comment on the EMERGE and ENGAGE findings. “The subset were the mildest affected patients on the highest dose for the longest time.”

The main difference between the two studies was that one was adequately powered for this subanalysis and the other was not. Even the underpowered subanalysis showed a beneficial trend, added Dr. Caselli, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona.

Dr. Caselli said these findings raise a number of unanswered questions. For example, is a subanalysis valid? Is the degree of improvement clinically meaningful or meaningful enough to justify the anticipated cost of the drug itself – “likely to be very expensive” plus the “cost and hassle” of monthly IV infusions? Is there enough provider and infusion center capacity going forward? What will the reimbursement from third party payers be like?

Biogen sponsored the EMERGE and ENGAGE studies. Dr. Haeberlein is a Biogen employee. Dr. Caselli had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Haeberlein SB et al. AAN 2020, Abstract 46977.

The calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody galcanezumab (Emgality, Lilly) compared favorably to placebo for reducing the number of average monthly migraine days in a new study of people with treatment-resistant migraine headaches. “The patients included in our study had previously tried multiple migraine preventive treatments that didn’t work for them. These patients are left with limited treatment options to help with the debilitating pain of migraine,” said lead author Holland C. Detke, PhD, senior clinical research advisor at Eli Lilly and Company Biomedicines.

Participants who took the drug experienced “a rapid reduction in migraine days starting as early as month 1, and continuing through the 6 months of the study,” Dr. Detke said.

The treatment group reported an average 4.0 fewer monthly migraine days at 3 months, for example, compared with a baseline of 13.4 days, whereas the placebo group decreased an average 1.29 days from a similar baseline of 13.0 migraine days.

Dr. Detke presented these and other results of the open-label phase of the CONQUER phase 3 trial online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

The investigators enrolled 462 adults with episodic or chronic migraine. All participants previously failed two to four migraine treatments because of insufficient efficacy or issues around tolerability or safety. At month 0, 232 people were randomly assigned to galcanezumab and another 230 to placebo injections. At 3 months, 449 participants received a galcanezumab injection as part of the open-label treatment phase.

Participants were an average 48 years old, approximately 86% were women, and 82% were white. At baseline, mean Migraine Specific Quality of Life Role Function Restrictive (MSQ RFR) domain score was 45, “indicating significant impairment in functioning,” Dr. Detke said. At the same time, mean Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) total score was 51, “indicating quite severe disability.”
 

Significant outcomes

The decrease in migraine days at 3 months – 4.0 days with treatment versus 1.29 with placebo – was statistically significant (P < .0001). During the open-label phase, participants who switched from placebo “essentially catch up to where the previously treated people were,” Dr. Detke said. At 6 months, the decrease in average monthly headache days was 5.60 in the initial galcanezumab group versus 5.24 in the initial placebo group.

Significant differences at 3 months versus baseline were observed in participants who received galcanezumab when investigators assessed reduction in 50% or more, 75% or more, or 100% of mean monthly migraine days. No such significant decreases were seen in the placebo group.

Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in the open-label phase included nasopharyngitis in 4.2%, injection site pain in 3.8%, and injection site erythema in 2.7%. Five participants discontinued during the open-label phase because of adverse events.

The results of the study suggest galcanezumab “should be considered as a treatment option for patients who have not had success with previous treatments,” Dr. Detke said.
 

Multiple strengths of study

“It is encouraging that galcanezumab works in patients who have failed prior reduction strategies,” A. Laine Green, MD, a neurologist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., said when asked to comment.

This study did not look at patients who have failed more than four previous reduction strategies, he added. “Clinically we see many of these patients. To be fair, no one has studied this group using the monoclonal antibodies.”

Dr. Green noted several strengths of the study. The groups were similar, there were few dropouts during the open-label extension, and there were no unexpected side effects or adverse events. “Those who got placebo caught up to those who received active treatment in the double-blind phase,” he said. “It is also nice to see patient reported outcomes improved as headaches improve. This adds consistency to the results.”

One caveat, Dr. Green noted, is “with open-label extensions, there is always the potential for bias because patients know what treatment they are receiving.”

Overall [the study] gives hope that patients who have failed previous reduction strategies may respond to the newer monoclonal antibodies.”
 

Aligns with previous findings

The results are “the same as any other long-term extension study of a drug for migraine,” Stephen Silberstein, MD, said when asked to comment. “The longer one takes it, the better you get.”

The research also confirms that if you switch patients taking placebo to an active treatment, they get better, added Dr. Silberstein, director of the Headache Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Because they are injections, agents such as galcanezumab, other monoclonal antibodies, and botulinum toxin offer better compliance for headache compared with small molecule medications that require daily oral dosing, he added.

Eli Lilly and Company funded the study. Dr. Holland Detke is a Lilly employee. Dr. Green collaborated with Lilly on a poster for the AHS scientific meeting on a similar topic but did not receive compensation. Up until August 2019, he served as a consultant for Lilly, Novartis, Teva and Allergan. Dr. Green is also a member of the Medscape and American Headache Society Migraine Steering Committee. Dr. Silberstein is a member of the advisory board and consultant for Lilly.

Source: Detke HC et al. AAN 2020. Abstract 43625.

The calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody galcanezumab (Emgality, Lilly) compared favorably to placebo for reducing the number of average monthly migraine days in a new study of people with treatment-resistant migraine headaches. “The patients included in our study had previously tried multiple migraine preventive treatments that didn’t work for them. These patients are left with limited treatment options to help with the debilitating pain of migraine,” said lead author Holland C. Detke, PhD, senior clinical research advisor at Eli Lilly and Company Biomedicines.

Participants who took the drug experienced “a rapid reduction in migraine days starting as early as month 1, and continuing through the 6 months of the study,” Dr. Detke said.

The treatment group reported an average 4.0 fewer monthly migraine days at 3 months, for example, compared with a baseline of 13.4 days, whereas the placebo group decreased an average 1.29 days from a similar baseline of 13.0 migraine days.

Dr. Detke presented these and other results of the open-label phase of the CONQUER phase 3 trial online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

The investigators enrolled 462 adults with episodic or chronic migraine. All participants previously failed two to four migraine treatments because of insufficient efficacy or issues around tolerability or safety. At month 0, 232 people were randomly assigned to galcanezumab and another 230 to placebo injections. At 3 months, 449 participants received a galcanezumab injection as part of the open-label treatment phase.

Participants were an average 48 years old, approximately 86% were women, and 82% were white. At baseline, mean Migraine Specific Quality of Life Role Function Restrictive (MSQ RFR) domain score was 45, “indicating significant impairment in functioning,” Dr. Detke said. At the same time, mean Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) total score was 51, “indicating quite severe disability.”
 

Significant outcomes

The decrease in migraine days at 3 months – 4.0 days with treatment versus 1.29 with placebo – was statistically significant (P < .0001). During the open-label phase, participants who switched from placebo “essentially catch up to where the previously treated people were,” Dr. Detke said. At 6 months, the decrease in average monthly headache days was 5.60 in the initial galcanezumab group versus 5.24 in the initial placebo group.

Significant differences at 3 months versus baseline were observed in participants who received galcanezumab when investigators assessed reduction in 50% or more, 75% or more, or 100% of mean monthly migraine days. No such significant decreases were seen in the placebo group.

Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in the open-label phase included nasopharyngitis in 4.2%, injection site pain in 3.8%, and injection site erythema in 2.7%. Five participants discontinued during the open-label phase because of adverse events.

The results of the study suggest galcanezumab “should be considered as a treatment option for patients who have not had success with previous treatments,” Dr. Detke said.
 

Multiple strengths of study

“It is encouraging that galcanezumab works in patients who have failed prior reduction strategies,” A. Laine Green, MD, a neurologist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., said when asked to comment.

This study did not look at patients who have failed more than four previous reduction strategies, he added. “Clinically we see many of these patients. To be fair, no one has studied this group using the monoclonal antibodies.”

Dr. Green noted several strengths of the study. The groups were similar, there were few dropouts during the open-label extension, and there were no unexpected side effects or adverse events. “Those who got placebo caught up to those who received active treatment in the double-blind phase,” he said. “It is also nice to see patient reported outcomes improved as headaches improve. This adds consistency to the results.”

One caveat, Dr. Green noted, is “with open-label extensions, there is always the potential for bias because patients know what treatment they are receiving.”

Overall [the study] gives hope that patients who have failed previous reduction strategies may respond to the newer monoclonal antibodies.”
 

Aligns with previous findings

The results are “the same as any other long-term extension study of a drug for migraine,” Stephen Silberstein, MD, said when asked to comment. “The longer one takes it, the better you get.”

The research also confirms that if you switch patients taking placebo to an active treatment, they get better, added Dr. Silberstein, director of the Headache Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Because they are injections, agents such as galcanezumab, other monoclonal antibodies, and botulinum toxin offer better compliance for headache compared with small molecule medications that require daily oral dosing, he added.

Eli Lilly and Company funded the study. Dr. Holland Detke is a Lilly employee. Dr. Green collaborated with Lilly on a poster for the AHS scientific meeting on a similar topic but did not receive compensation. Up until August 2019, he served as a consultant for Lilly, Novartis, Teva and Allergan. Dr. Green is also a member of the Medscape and American Headache Society Migraine Steering Committee. Dr. Silberstein is a member of the advisory board and consultant for Lilly.

Source: Detke HC et al. AAN 2020. Abstract 43625.

The calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody galcanezumab (Emgality, Lilly) compared favorably to placebo for reducing the number of average monthly migraine days in a new study of people with treatment-resistant migraine headaches. “The patients included in our study had previously tried multiple migraine preventive treatments that didn’t work for them. These patients are left with limited treatment options to help with the debilitating pain of migraine,” said lead author Holland C. Detke, PhD, senior clinical research advisor at Eli Lilly and Company Biomedicines.

Participants who took the drug experienced “a rapid reduction in migraine days starting as early as month 1, and continuing through the 6 months of the study,” Dr. Detke said.

The treatment group reported an average 4.0 fewer monthly migraine days at 3 months, for example, compared with a baseline of 13.4 days, whereas the placebo group decreased an average 1.29 days from a similar baseline of 13.0 migraine days.

Dr. Detke presented these and other results of the open-label phase of the CONQUER phase 3 trial online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

The investigators enrolled 462 adults with episodic or chronic migraine. All participants previously failed two to four migraine treatments because of insufficient efficacy or issues around tolerability or safety. At month 0, 232 people were randomly assigned to galcanezumab and another 230 to placebo injections. At 3 months, 449 participants received a galcanezumab injection as part of the open-label treatment phase.

Participants were an average 48 years old, approximately 86% were women, and 82% were white. At baseline, mean Migraine Specific Quality of Life Role Function Restrictive (MSQ RFR) domain score was 45, “indicating significant impairment in functioning,” Dr. Detke said. At the same time, mean Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) total score was 51, “indicating quite severe disability.”
 

Significant outcomes

The decrease in migraine days at 3 months – 4.0 days with treatment versus 1.29 with placebo – was statistically significant (P < .0001). During the open-label phase, participants who switched from placebo “essentially catch up to where the previously treated people were,” Dr. Detke said. At 6 months, the decrease in average monthly headache days was 5.60 in the initial galcanezumab group versus 5.24 in the initial placebo group.

Significant differences at 3 months versus baseline were observed in participants who received galcanezumab when investigators assessed reduction in 50% or more, 75% or more, or 100% of mean monthly migraine days. No such significant decreases were seen in the placebo group.

Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in the open-label phase included nasopharyngitis in 4.2%, injection site pain in 3.8%, and injection site erythema in 2.7%. Five participants discontinued during the open-label phase because of adverse events.

The results of the study suggest galcanezumab “should be considered as a treatment option for patients who have not had success with previous treatments,” Dr. Detke said.
 

Multiple strengths of study

“It is encouraging that galcanezumab works in patients who have failed prior reduction strategies,” A. Laine Green, MD, a neurologist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., said when asked to comment.

This study did not look at patients who have failed more than four previous reduction strategies, he added. “Clinically we see many of these patients. To be fair, no one has studied this group using the monoclonal antibodies.”

Dr. Green noted several strengths of the study. The groups were similar, there were few dropouts during the open-label extension, and there were no unexpected side effects or adverse events. “Those who got placebo caught up to those who received active treatment in the double-blind phase,” he said. “It is also nice to see patient reported outcomes improved as headaches improve. This adds consistency to the results.”

One caveat, Dr. Green noted, is “with open-label extensions, there is always the potential for bias because patients know what treatment they are receiving.”

Overall [the study] gives hope that patients who have failed previous reduction strategies may respond to the newer monoclonal antibodies.”
 

Aligns with previous findings

The results are “the same as any other long-term extension study of a drug for migraine,” Stephen Silberstein, MD, said when asked to comment. “The longer one takes it, the better you get.”

The research also confirms that if you switch patients taking placebo to an active treatment, they get better, added Dr. Silberstein, director of the Headache Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Because they are injections, agents such as galcanezumab, other monoclonal antibodies, and botulinum toxin offer better compliance for headache compared with small molecule medications that require daily oral dosing, he added.

Eli Lilly and Company funded the study. Dr. Holland Detke is a Lilly employee. Dr. Green collaborated with Lilly on a poster for the AHS scientific meeting on a similar topic but did not receive compensation. Up until August 2019, he served as a consultant for Lilly, Novartis, Teva and Allergan. Dr. Green is also a member of the Medscape and American Headache Society Migraine Steering Committee. Dr. Silberstein is a member of the advisory board and consultant for Lilly.

Source: Detke HC et al. AAN 2020. Abstract 43625.

In a head-to-head comparison, natalizumab was superior to fingolimod with respect to evidence of disease activity at 1 year for patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Use of natalizumab was associated with fewer new T2 lesions (0.7 vs 1.4 with fingolimod) and gadolinium-enhancing lesions (0.03 vs. 0.5, respectively) at 12 months, for example.

“The take-home message is that natalizumab showed significant superiority compared to fingolimod on the primary outcome, which was the proportion of patients reaching NEDA [no evidence of disease activity] at 12 months,” lead author Mikael Cohen, MD, said.

“The difference between both drugs was prominent on MRI parameters, especially regarding the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions,” added Dr. Cohen, of the Department of Neurology at University Hospital Center in Nice, France.

This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Twelve-month results

The design of the Best Escalation Strategy in MS (BEST MS) study makes it unique, Dr. Cohen said. “It was a prospective and standardized study, unlike most other publications comparing efficacy of those two drugs that were based on retrospective analysis of data registries,” he said. Although BEST MS was an open-label, real-life analysis, the neuroradiologist who analyzed MRI images was blinded to treatment arms, he added.

The multicenter study began in France in 2013, when natalizumab and fingolimod were the two most commonly used agents for active RRMS.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues assessed 230 patients with the condition. The mean age was 38 years, and 75% were women. At the discretion of the treating physician, 113 participants received natalizumab, and 117 were treated with fingolimod.

A multivariate analysis confirmed that fingolimod was associated with a lower likelihood of achieving NEDA at 12 months.

Most relapses occurred early, and the annual relapse rate favored natalizumab, the researchers noted. In addition, the number of discontinuations due to adverse events was higher in the fingolimod group.

“We are working to submit the paper for publication,” Dr. Cohen said. It has also been submitted to the ECTRIMS/ACTRIMS Joint Congress in Washington, DC, for presentation in September 2020.

More tesearch warranted

Commenting on the study, Michelle H. Cameron, MD, said the findings are difficult to interpret because “this was not a randomized controlled trial. Treatment choice was at the discretion of the providers.

“It is hard to know what biases this approach introduced – although it is reassuring that the baseline clinical and radiographic characteristics are described as similar,” said Cameron, codirector of the MS Center of Excellence West at the VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon.

In addition, the superior MRI outcomes at 12 months with natalizumab need to be backed up by clinical outcomes, she said, preferably spanning at least 2 years.

“Overall, these results seem to be consistent with the randomized controlled trials of these individual agents,” Dr. Cameron concluded.

BEST MS was an institutional study and was not funded by any pharmaceutical firm. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cameron is a consultant for Greenwich Biosciences and Adamas Pharmaceuticals.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a head-to-head comparison, natalizumab was superior to fingolimod with respect to evidence of disease activity at 1 year for patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Use of natalizumab was associated with fewer new T2 lesions (0.7 vs 1.4 with fingolimod) and gadolinium-enhancing lesions (0.03 vs. 0.5, respectively) at 12 months, for example.

“The take-home message is that natalizumab showed significant superiority compared to fingolimod on the primary outcome, which was the proportion of patients reaching NEDA [no evidence of disease activity] at 12 months,” lead author Mikael Cohen, MD, said.

“The difference between both drugs was prominent on MRI parameters, especially regarding the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions,” added Dr. Cohen, of the Department of Neurology at University Hospital Center in Nice, France.

This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Twelve-month results

The design of the Best Escalation Strategy in MS (BEST MS) study makes it unique, Dr. Cohen said. “It was a prospective and standardized study, unlike most other publications comparing efficacy of those two drugs that were based on retrospective analysis of data registries,” he said. Although BEST MS was an open-label, real-life analysis, the neuroradiologist who analyzed MRI images was blinded to treatment arms, he added.

The multicenter study began in France in 2013, when natalizumab and fingolimod were the two most commonly used agents for active RRMS.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues assessed 230 patients with the condition. The mean age was 38 years, and 75% were women. At the discretion of the treating physician, 113 participants received natalizumab, and 117 were treated with fingolimod.

A multivariate analysis confirmed that fingolimod was associated with a lower likelihood of achieving NEDA at 12 months.

Most relapses occurred early, and the annual relapse rate favored natalizumab, the researchers noted. In addition, the number of discontinuations due to adverse events was higher in the fingolimod group.

“We are working to submit the paper for publication,” Dr. Cohen said. It has also been submitted to the ECTRIMS/ACTRIMS Joint Congress in Washington, DC, for presentation in September 2020.

More tesearch warranted

Commenting on the study, Michelle H. Cameron, MD, said the findings are difficult to interpret because “this was not a randomized controlled trial. Treatment choice was at the discretion of the providers.

“It is hard to know what biases this approach introduced – although it is reassuring that the baseline clinical and radiographic characteristics are described as similar,” said Cameron, codirector of the MS Center of Excellence West at the VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon.

In addition, the superior MRI outcomes at 12 months with natalizumab need to be backed up by clinical outcomes, she said, preferably spanning at least 2 years.

“Overall, these results seem to be consistent with the randomized controlled trials of these individual agents,” Dr. Cameron concluded.

BEST MS was an institutional study and was not funded by any pharmaceutical firm. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cameron is a consultant for Greenwich Biosciences and Adamas Pharmaceuticals.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a head-to-head comparison, natalizumab was superior to fingolimod with respect to evidence of disease activity at 1 year for patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Use of natalizumab was associated with fewer new T2 lesions (0.7 vs 1.4 with fingolimod) and gadolinium-enhancing lesions (0.03 vs. 0.5, respectively) at 12 months, for example.

“The take-home message is that natalizumab showed significant superiority compared to fingolimod on the primary outcome, which was the proportion of patients reaching NEDA [no evidence of disease activity] at 12 months,” lead author Mikael Cohen, MD, said.

“The difference between both drugs was prominent on MRI parameters, especially regarding the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions,” added Dr. Cohen, of the Department of Neurology at University Hospital Center in Nice, France.

This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Twelve-month results

The design of the Best Escalation Strategy in MS (BEST MS) study makes it unique, Dr. Cohen said. “It was a prospective and standardized study, unlike most other publications comparing efficacy of those two drugs that were based on retrospective analysis of data registries,” he said. Although BEST MS was an open-label, real-life analysis, the neuroradiologist who analyzed MRI images was blinded to treatment arms, he added.

The multicenter study began in France in 2013, when natalizumab and fingolimod were the two most commonly used agents for active RRMS.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues assessed 230 patients with the condition. The mean age was 38 years, and 75% were women. At the discretion of the treating physician, 113 participants received natalizumab, and 117 were treated with fingolimod.

A multivariate analysis confirmed that fingolimod was associated with a lower likelihood of achieving NEDA at 12 months.

Most relapses occurred early, and the annual relapse rate favored natalizumab, the researchers noted. In addition, the number of discontinuations due to adverse events was higher in the fingolimod group.

“We are working to submit the paper for publication,” Dr. Cohen said. It has also been submitted to the ECTRIMS/ACTRIMS Joint Congress in Washington, DC, for presentation in September 2020.

More tesearch warranted

Commenting on the study, Michelle H. Cameron, MD, said the findings are difficult to interpret because “this was not a randomized controlled trial. Treatment choice was at the discretion of the providers.

“It is hard to know what biases this approach introduced – although it is reassuring that the baseline clinical and radiographic characteristics are described as similar,” said Cameron, codirector of the MS Center of Excellence West at the VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon.

In addition, the superior MRI outcomes at 12 months with natalizumab need to be backed up by clinical outcomes, she said, preferably spanning at least 2 years.

“Overall, these results seem to be consistent with the randomized controlled trials of these individual agents,” Dr. Cameron concluded.

BEST MS was an institutional study and was not funded by any pharmaceutical firm. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cameron is a consultant for Greenwich Biosciences and Adamas Pharmaceuticals.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) with high-efficacy therapy (HET) is associated with lower long-term disability compared with a step-wise increase to reach more aggressive treatment later, new research suggests. However, there is a trade-off: In this study of nearly 300 patients, those treated with initial HET experienced more disease activity in the first 2 years than other participants.

The HET benefit emerged between 2 and 10 years into the study. For example, the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores were significantly lower at 6 years in the early, aggressive treatment group than in the later HET group (2.4 vs 3.3, respectively).

“Treatment decisions made around the time of diagnosis will affect long-term outcomes,” said lead author Anna He, MBBS, currently with the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and the UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology in London.

Using the most efficacious disease-modifying therapies from the start minimizes disability, “whereas those patients escalating to high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies later do not seem to catch up to those who commenced earlier,” Dr. He said.

“Patients and clinicians should be aware of this when choosing treatment in early MS,” she added.

This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Patient-centered outcome

Instead of measures of brain volume, lesion count, serum neurofilament, or other biomarkers that are mainly of interest to clinicians and scientists, “the main outcome of interest to our patients is their disability,” Dr. He said. “The first question they ask at diagnosis is usually along the lines of: ‘What will my disability be in 10 years?’ ”

“This is what matters to patients and is fundamentally what motivated this study,” Dr. He added.

The investigators searched international MS registries for patients with relapsing-remitting MS starting HET, which included rituximab, ocrelizumab, mitoxantrone, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab.

They compared 117 participants who started HET within the first 2 years of clinical disease onset (the early group) with 181 participants who started HET after more than 4 years (the late group). All were followed for a median of 7.4 years (range, 6.4 to 8.6 years).

Difference in EDSS scores from baseline was the primary outcome. Both cohorts began the study with a mean EDSS score of 2.4, but between-group differences were significant at 10 years.

The secondary outcome of cumulative hazard of disability progression was higher in the early-treatment group from baseline to 2 years. Between the period of 2 and 10 years, the inverse was true.

In patients with highly active MS, “early exposure to high efficacy therapies is recommended,” Dr. He noted.

“We can already affect our patients’ lives enormously by utilizing our current toolbox in the most optimal way. It is our task to optimize this in a data-driven manner.”

Going forward, Dr. He plans to look at other outcomes, including patient-reported quality of life and health economic measures, and to take a different approach to future research.

Rather than assess MS outcomes from a disease-biology perspective, “I will be looking at MS outcomes from the perspective of its key stakeholders—the individual and society,” and the factors that influence them, Dr. He said.
 

Confirmatory evidence?

Commenting on the findings, Robert Gross, MD, a neurologist at the Rocky Mountain MS Center at the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora, said it is “hard to believe we are still having this debate” about earlier versus later HET.

There are now “numerous studies, including head-to-head trials and large cohort studies, showing superiority of highly efficacious agents to older disease-modifying therapies of more limited efficacy, as well as better outcomes with early versus delayed use of high-efficacy therapy,” said Dr. Gross, who was not involved with the current research.

“This study further adds to the evidence that we should be preferentially starting folks with relapsing-remitting MS right away on high-efficacy therapy, rather than waiting for relapses and disease progression to occur,” he added.

Drs. He and Gross have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) with high-efficacy therapy (HET) is associated with lower long-term disability compared with a step-wise increase to reach more aggressive treatment later, new research suggests. However, there is a trade-off: In this study of nearly 300 patients, those treated with initial HET experienced more disease activity in the first 2 years than other participants.

The HET benefit emerged between 2 and 10 years into the study. For example, the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores were significantly lower at 6 years in the early, aggressive treatment group than in the later HET group (2.4 vs 3.3, respectively).

“Treatment decisions made around the time of diagnosis will affect long-term outcomes,” said lead author Anna He, MBBS, currently with the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and the UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology in London.

Using the most efficacious disease-modifying therapies from the start minimizes disability, “whereas those patients escalating to high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies later do not seem to catch up to those who commenced earlier,” Dr. He said.

“Patients and clinicians should be aware of this when choosing treatment in early MS,” she added.

This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Patient-centered outcome

Instead of measures of brain volume, lesion count, serum neurofilament, or other biomarkers that are mainly of interest to clinicians and scientists, “the main outcome of interest to our patients is their disability,” Dr. He said. “The first question they ask at diagnosis is usually along the lines of: ‘What will my disability be in 10 years?’ ”

“This is what matters to patients and is fundamentally what motivated this study,” Dr. He added.

The investigators searched international MS registries for patients with relapsing-remitting MS starting HET, which included rituximab, ocrelizumab, mitoxantrone, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab.

They compared 117 participants who started HET within the first 2 years of clinical disease onset (the early group) with 181 participants who started HET after more than 4 years (the late group). All were followed for a median of 7.4 years (range, 6.4 to 8.6 years).

Difference in EDSS scores from baseline was the primary outcome. Both cohorts began the study with a mean EDSS score of 2.4, but between-group differences were significant at 10 years.

The secondary outcome of cumulative hazard of disability progression was higher in the early-treatment group from baseline to 2 years. Between the period of 2 and 10 years, the inverse was true.

In patients with highly active MS, “early exposure to high efficacy therapies is recommended,” Dr. He noted.

“We can already affect our patients’ lives enormously by utilizing our current toolbox in the most optimal way. It is our task to optimize this in a data-driven manner.”

Going forward, Dr. He plans to look at other outcomes, including patient-reported quality of life and health economic measures, and to take a different approach to future research.

Rather than assess MS outcomes from a disease-biology perspective, “I will be looking at MS outcomes from the perspective of its key stakeholders—the individual and society,” and the factors that influence them, Dr. He said.
 

Confirmatory evidence?

Commenting on the findings, Robert Gross, MD, a neurologist at the Rocky Mountain MS Center at the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora, said it is “hard to believe we are still having this debate” about earlier versus later HET.

There are now “numerous studies, including head-to-head trials and large cohort studies, showing superiority of highly efficacious agents to older disease-modifying therapies of more limited efficacy, as well as better outcomes with early versus delayed use of high-efficacy therapy,” said Dr. Gross, who was not involved with the current research.

“This study further adds to the evidence that we should be preferentially starting folks with relapsing-remitting MS right away on high-efficacy therapy, rather than waiting for relapses and disease progression to occur,” he added.

Drs. He and Gross have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) with high-efficacy therapy (HET) is associated with lower long-term disability compared with a step-wise increase to reach more aggressive treatment later, new research suggests. However, there is a trade-off: In this study of nearly 300 patients, those treated with initial HET experienced more disease activity in the first 2 years than other participants.

The HET benefit emerged between 2 and 10 years into the study. For example, the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores were significantly lower at 6 years in the early, aggressive treatment group than in the later HET group (2.4 vs 3.3, respectively).

“Treatment decisions made around the time of diagnosis will affect long-term outcomes,” said lead author Anna He, MBBS, currently with the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and the UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology in London.

Using the most efficacious disease-modifying therapies from the start minimizes disability, “whereas those patients escalating to high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies later do not seem to catch up to those who commenced earlier,” Dr. He said.

“Patients and clinicians should be aware of this when choosing treatment in early MS,” she added.

This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Patient-centered outcome

Instead of measures of brain volume, lesion count, serum neurofilament, or other biomarkers that are mainly of interest to clinicians and scientists, “the main outcome of interest to our patients is their disability,” Dr. He said. “The first question they ask at diagnosis is usually along the lines of: ‘What will my disability be in 10 years?’ ”

“This is what matters to patients and is fundamentally what motivated this study,” Dr. He added.

The investigators searched international MS registries for patients with relapsing-remitting MS starting HET, which included rituximab, ocrelizumab, mitoxantrone, alemtuzumab, or natalizumab.

They compared 117 participants who started HET within the first 2 years of clinical disease onset (the early group) with 181 participants who started HET after more than 4 years (the late group). All were followed for a median of 7.4 years (range, 6.4 to 8.6 years).

Difference in EDSS scores from baseline was the primary outcome. Both cohorts began the study with a mean EDSS score of 2.4, but between-group differences were significant at 10 years.

The secondary outcome of cumulative hazard of disability progression was higher in the early-treatment group from baseline to 2 years. Between the period of 2 and 10 years, the inverse was true.

In patients with highly active MS, “early exposure to high efficacy therapies is recommended,” Dr. He noted.

“We can already affect our patients’ lives enormously by utilizing our current toolbox in the most optimal way. It is our task to optimize this in a data-driven manner.”

Going forward, Dr. He plans to look at other outcomes, including patient-reported quality of life and health economic measures, and to take a different approach to future research.

Rather than assess MS outcomes from a disease-biology perspective, “I will be looking at MS outcomes from the perspective of its key stakeholders—the individual and society,” and the factors that influence them, Dr. He said.
 

Confirmatory evidence?

Commenting on the findings, Robert Gross, MD, a neurologist at the Rocky Mountain MS Center at the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora, said it is “hard to believe we are still having this debate” about earlier versus later HET.

There are now “numerous studies, including head-to-head trials and large cohort studies, showing superiority of highly efficacious agents to older disease-modifying therapies of more limited efficacy, as well as better outcomes with early versus delayed use of high-efficacy therapy,” said Dr. Gross, who was not involved with the current research.

“This study further adds to the evidence that we should be preferentially starting folks with relapsing-remitting MS right away on high-efficacy therapy, rather than waiting for relapses and disease progression to occur,” he added.

Drs. He and Gross have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A clinical score may help clinicians predict which patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy up to 24 hours after a stroke are at higher risk of developing symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.

“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”

The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Limited data

High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.

Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.

To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.

The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.

The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).

Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).

“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.

Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
 

Twice the risk

The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).

A step in the right direction?

Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke

“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.

Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”

This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.

Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.

Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.

The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”

He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.

“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.

Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.

“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”

Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.

A clinical score may help clinicians predict which patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy up to 24 hours after a stroke are at higher risk of developing symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.

“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”

The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Limited data

High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.

Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.

To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.

The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.

The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).

Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).

“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.

Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
 

Twice the risk

The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).

A step in the right direction?

Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke

“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.

Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”

This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.

Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.

Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.

The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”

He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.

“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.

Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.

“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”

Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.

A clinical score may help clinicians predict which patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy up to 24 hours after a stroke are at higher risk of developing symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.

“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”

The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Limited data

High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.

Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.

To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.

The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.

The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).

Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).

“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.

Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
 

Twice the risk

The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).

A step in the right direction?

Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke

“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.

Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”

This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.

Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.

Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.

The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”

He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.

“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.

Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.

“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”

Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.

With some pivotal trials on hold, the COVID-19 pandemic is slowing the pace of research in Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, and multiple sclerosis (MS).

However, researchers remain determined to forge ahead – with many redesigning their studies, at least in part to optimize the safety of their participants and research staff.

Keeping people engaged while protocols are on hold; expanding normal safety considerations; and re-enlisting statisticians to keep their findings as significant as possible are just some of study survival strategies underway.
 

Alzheimer’s disease research on hold

The pandemic is having a significant impact on Alzheimer’s disease research, and medical research in general, says Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president, Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association.

“Many clinical trials worldwide are pausing, changing, or halting the testing of the drug or the intervention,” she told Medscape Medical News. “How the teams have adapted depends on the study,” she added. “As you can imagine, things are changing on a daily basis.”

The US Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER) trial, for example, is on hold until at least May 31. The Alzheimer’s Association is helping to implement and fund the study along with Wake Forest University Medical Center.

“We’re not randomizing participants at this point in time and the intervention — which is based on a team meeting, and there is a social aspect to that — has been paused,” Dr. Snyder said.

Another pivotal study underway is the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s study (the A4 Study). Investigators are evaluating if an anti-amyloid antibody, solanezumab (Eli Lilly), can slow memory loss among people with amyloid on imaging but no symptoms of cognitive decline at baseline.

“The A4 Study is definitely continuing. However, in an effort to minimize risk to participants, site staff and study integrity, we have implemented an optional study hiatus for both the double-blind and open-label extension phases,” lead investigator Reisa Anne Sperling, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

“We wanted to prioritize the safety of our participants as well as the ability of participants to remain in the study … despite disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Sperling, who is professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

The ultimate goal is for A4 participants to receive the full number of planned infusions and assessments, even if it takes longer, she added.

Many Alzheimer’s disease researchers outside the United States face similar challenges. “As you probably are well aware, Spain is now in a complete lockdown. This has affected research centers like ours, the Barcelona Brain Research Center, and the way we work,” José Luís Molinuevo Guix, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

All participants in observational studies like the ALFA+ study and initiatives, as well as those in trials including PENSA and AB1601, “are not allowed, by law, to come in, hence from a safety perspective we are on good grounds,” added Dr. Molinuevo Guix, who directs the Alzheimer’s disease and other cognitive disorders unit at the Hospital Clinic de Barcelona.

The investigators are creating protocols for communicating with participants during the pandemic and for restarting visits safely after the lockdown has ended.
 

Stroke studies amended or suspended

A similar situation is occurring in stroke trials. Stroke is “obviously an acute disease, as well as a disease that requires secondary prevention,” Mitchell Elkind, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association, told Medscape Medical News.

“One could argue that patients with stroke are going to be in the hospital anyway – why not enroll them in a study? They’re not incurring any additional risk,” he said. “But the staff have to come in to see them, and we’re really trying to avoid exposure.”

One ongoing trial, the Atrial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs In Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke (ARCADIA), stopped randomly assigning new participants to secondary prevention with apixaban or aspirin because of COVID-19. However, Dr. Elkind and colleagues plan to provide medication to the 440 people already in the trial.

“Wherever possible, the study coordinators are shipping the drug to people and doing follow-up visits by phone or video,” said Dr. Elkind, chief of the Division of Neurology Clinical Outcomes Research and Population Sciences at Columbia University in New York City.

Protecting patients, staff, and ultimately society is a “major driving force in stopping the randomizations,” he stressed.

ARCADIA is part of the StrokeNet prevention trials network, run by the NIH’s National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Additional pivotal trials include the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) and the Multi-arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis (MOST) studies, he said.

Joseph Broderick, MD, director of the national NIH StrokeNet, agreed that safety comes first. “It was the decision of the StrokeNet leadership and the principal investigators of the trials that we needed to hold recruitment of new patients while we worked on adapting processes of enrollment to ensure the safety of both patients and researchers interacting with study patients,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Potential risks vary based on the study intervention and the need for in-person interactions. Trials that include stimulation devices or physical therapy, for example, might be most affected, added Dr. Broderick, professor and director of the UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio.

Nevertheless, “there are potential ways … to move as much as possible toward telemedicine and digital interactions during this time.”
 

Multiple challenges in multiple sclerosis

At the national level, the COVID-19 pandemic has had an “unprecedented impact on almost all the clinical trials funded by NINDS,” said Clinton Wright, MD, director of the Division of Clinical Research at NINDS. “Investigators have had to adapt quickly.”

Supplementing existing grants with money to conduct research on COVID-19 and pursuing research opportunities from different institutes are “some of the creative approaches [that] have come from the NIH [National Institutes of Health] itself,” Dr. Wright said. “Other creative approaches have come from investigators trying to keep their studies and trials going during the pandemic.”

In clinical trials, “everything from electronic consent to in-home research drug delivery is being brought to bear.”

“A few ongoing trials have been able to modify their protocols to obtain consent and carry out evaluations remotely by telephone or videoconferencing,” Dr. Wright said. “This is especially critical for trials that involve medical management of specific risk factors or conditions, where suspension of the trial could itself have adverse consequences due to reduced engagement with research participants.”

For participants already in MS studies, “each upcoming visit is assessed for whether it’s critical or could be done virtually or just skipped. If a person needs a treatment that cannot be postponed or skipped, they come in,” Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the Experimental Therapeutics Program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, told Medscape Medical News.

New study enrollment is largely on hold and study visits for existing participants are limited, said Dr. Cohen, who is also president of the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Some of the major ongoing trials in MS are “looking at very fundamental questions in the field,” Dr. Cohen said. The Determining the Effectiveness of earLy Intensive Versus Escalation Approaches for RRMS (DELIVER-MS) and Traditional Versus Early Aggressive Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis (TREAT-MS) trials, for example, evaluate whether treatment should be initiated with one of the less efficacious agents with escalation as needed, or whether treatment should begin with a high-efficacy agent.

Both trials are currently on hold because of the pandemic, as is the Best Available Therapy Versus Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant for Multiple Sclerosis (BEAT-MS) study.

“There has been a lot of interest in hematopoietic stem cell transplants and where they fit into our overall treatment strategy, and this is intended to provide a more definitive answer,” Dr. Cohen said.
 

Making the most of down time

“The pandemic has been challenging” in terms of ongoing MS research, said Benjamin M. Segal, MD, chair of the Department of Neurology and director of the Neuroscience Research Institute at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

“With regard to the lab, our animal model experiments have been placed on hold. We have stopped collecting samples from clinical subjects for biomarker studies.

“However, my research team has been taking advantage of the time that has been freed up from bench work by analyzing data sets that had been placed aside, delving more deeply into the literature, and writing new grant proposals and articles,” he added.

Two of Dr. Segal’s trainees are writing review articles on the immunopathogenesis of MS and its treatment. Another postdoctoral candidate is writing a grant proposal to investigate how coinfection with a coronavirus modulates CNS pathology and the clinical course of an animal model of MS.

“I am asking my trainees to plan out experiments further in advance than they ever have before, so they are as prepared as possible to resume their research agendas once we are up and running again,” Dr. Segal said.

Confronting current challenges while planning for a future less disrupted by the pandemic is a common theme that emerges.

“The duration of this [pandemic] will dictate how we analyze the data at the end [for the US POINTER study]. There is a large group of statisticians working on this,” Dr. Snyder said.

Dr. Sperling of Harvard Medical School also remains undeterred. “This is definitely a challenging time, as we must not allow the COVID-19 to interfere with our essential mission to find a successful treatment to prevent cognitive decline in AD. We do need, however, to be as flexible as possible to protect our participants and minimize the impact to our overall study integrity,” she said.
 

NIH guidance

Dr. Molinuevo Guix, of the Barcelona Brain Research Center, is also determined to continue his Alzheimer’s disease research. “I am aware that after the crisis, there will be less [risk] but still a COVID-19 infection risk, so apart from trying to generate part of our visits virtually, we want to make sure we have all necessary safety measures in place. We remain very active to preserve the work we have done to keep up the fight against Alzheimer’s and dementia,” he said.

Such forward thinking also applies to major stroke trials, said Dr. Broderick of the University of Cincinnati. “As soon as we shut down enrollment in stroke trials, we immediately began to make plans about how and when we can restart our stroke trials,” he explained. “One of our trials can do every step of the trial process remotely without direct in-person interactions and will be able to restart soon.”

An individualized approach is needed, Dr. Broderick added. “For trials involving necessary in-person and hands-on assessments, we will need to consider how best to use protective equipment and expanded testing that will likely match the ongoing clinical care and requirements at a given institution.

“Even if a trial officially reopens enrollment, the decision to enroll locally will need to follow local institutional environment and guidelines. Thus, restart of trial enrollment will not likely be uniform, similar to how trials often start in the first place,” Dr. Broderick said.

The NIH published uniform standards for researchers across its institutes to help guide them during the pandemic. Future contingency plans also are underway at the NINDS.

“As the pandemic wanes and in-person research activities restart, it will be important to have in place safety measures that prevent a resurgence of the virus, such as proper personal protective equipment for staff and research participants, said Dr. Wright, the clinical research director at NINDS.

For clinical trials, NINDS is prepared to provide supplemental funds to trial investigators to help support additional activities undertaken as a result of the pandemic.

“This has been an instructive experience. The pandemic will end, and we will resume much of our old patterns of behavior,” said Ohio State’s Dr. Segal. “But some of the strategies that we have employed to get through this time will continue to influence the way we communicate information, plan experiments, and prioritize research activities in the future, to good effect.”

Drs. Snyder, Sperling, Molinuevo Guix, Elkind, Broderick, Wright, Cohen, and Segal have disclosed no relevant disclosures.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

With some pivotal trials on hold, the COVID-19 pandemic is slowing the pace of research in Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, and multiple sclerosis (MS).

However, researchers remain determined to forge ahead – with many redesigning their studies, at least in part to optimize the safety of their participants and research staff.

Keeping people engaged while protocols are on hold; expanding normal safety considerations; and re-enlisting statisticians to keep their findings as significant as possible are just some of study survival strategies underway.
 

Alzheimer’s disease research on hold

The pandemic is having a significant impact on Alzheimer’s disease research, and medical research in general, says Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president, Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association.

“Many clinical trials worldwide are pausing, changing, or halting the testing of the drug or the intervention,” she told Medscape Medical News. “How the teams have adapted depends on the study,” she added. “As you can imagine, things are changing on a daily basis.”

The US Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER) trial, for example, is on hold until at least May 31. The Alzheimer’s Association is helping to implement and fund the study along with Wake Forest University Medical Center.

“We’re not randomizing participants at this point in time and the intervention — which is based on a team meeting, and there is a social aspect to that — has been paused,” Dr. Snyder said.

Another pivotal study underway is the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s study (the A4 Study). Investigators are evaluating if an anti-amyloid antibody, solanezumab (Eli Lilly), can slow memory loss among people with amyloid on imaging but no symptoms of cognitive decline at baseline.

“The A4 Study is definitely continuing. However, in an effort to minimize risk to participants, site staff and study integrity, we have implemented an optional study hiatus for both the double-blind and open-label extension phases,” lead investigator Reisa Anne Sperling, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

“We wanted to prioritize the safety of our participants as well as the ability of participants to remain in the study … despite disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Sperling, who is professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

The ultimate goal is for A4 participants to receive the full number of planned infusions and assessments, even if it takes longer, she added.

Many Alzheimer’s disease researchers outside the United States face similar challenges. “As you probably are well aware, Spain is now in a complete lockdown. This has affected research centers like ours, the Barcelona Brain Research Center, and the way we work,” José Luís Molinuevo Guix, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

All participants in observational studies like the ALFA+ study and initiatives, as well as those in trials including PENSA and AB1601, “are not allowed, by law, to come in, hence from a safety perspective we are on good grounds,” added Dr. Molinuevo Guix, who directs the Alzheimer’s disease and other cognitive disorders unit at the Hospital Clinic de Barcelona.

The investigators are creating protocols for communicating with participants during the pandemic and for restarting visits safely after the lockdown has ended.
 

Stroke studies amended or suspended

A similar situation is occurring in stroke trials. Stroke is “obviously an acute disease, as well as a disease that requires secondary prevention,” Mitchell Elkind, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association, told Medscape Medical News.

“One could argue that patients with stroke are going to be in the hospital anyway – why not enroll them in a study? They’re not incurring any additional risk,” he said. “But the staff have to come in to see them, and we’re really trying to avoid exposure.”

One ongoing trial, the Atrial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs In Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke (ARCADIA), stopped randomly assigning new participants to secondary prevention with apixaban or aspirin because of COVID-19. However, Dr. Elkind and colleagues plan to provide medication to the 440 people already in the trial.

“Wherever possible, the study coordinators are shipping the drug to people and doing follow-up visits by phone or video,” said Dr. Elkind, chief of the Division of Neurology Clinical Outcomes Research and Population Sciences at Columbia University in New York City.

Protecting patients, staff, and ultimately society is a “major driving force in stopping the randomizations,” he stressed.

ARCADIA is part of the StrokeNet prevention trials network, run by the NIH’s National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Additional pivotal trials include the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) and the Multi-arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis (MOST) studies, he said.

Joseph Broderick, MD, director of the national NIH StrokeNet, agreed that safety comes first. “It was the decision of the StrokeNet leadership and the principal investigators of the trials that we needed to hold recruitment of new patients while we worked on adapting processes of enrollment to ensure the safety of both patients and researchers interacting with study patients,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Potential risks vary based on the study intervention and the need for in-person interactions. Trials that include stimulation devices or physical therapy, for example, might be most affected, added Dr. Broderick, professor and director of the UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio.

Nevertheless, “there are potential ways … to move as much as possible toward telemedicine and digital interactions during this time.”
 

Multiple challenges in multiple sclerosis

At the national level, the COVID-19 pandemic has had an “unprecedented impact on almost all the clinical trials funded by NINDS,” said Clinton Wright, MD, director of the Division of Clinical Research at NINDS. “Investigators have had to adapt quickly.”

Supplementing existing grants with money to conduct research on COVID-19 and pursuing research opportunities from different institutes are “some of the creative approaches [that] have come from the NIH [National Institutes of Health] itself,” Dr. Wright said. “Other creative approaches have come from investigators trying to keep their studies and trials going during the pandemic.”

In clinical trials, “everything from electronic consent to in-home research drug delivery is being brought to bear.”

“A few ongoing trials have been able to modify their protocols to obtain consent and carry out evaluations remotely by telephone or videoconferencing,” Dr. Wright said. “This is especially critical for trials that involve medical management of specific risk factors or conditions, where suspension of the trial could itself have adverse consequences due to reduced engagement with research participants.”

For participants already in MS studies, “each upcoming visit is assessed for whether it’s critical or could be done virtually or just skipped. If a person needs a treatment that cannot be postponed or skipped, they come in,” Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the Experimental Therapeutics Program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, told Medscape Medical News.

New study enrollment is largely on hold and study visits for existing participants are limited, said Dr. Cohen, who is also president of the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Some of the major ongoing trials in MS are “looking at very fundamental questions in the field,” Dr. Cohen said. The Determining the Effectiveness of earLy Intensive Versus Escalation Approaches for RRMS (DELIVER-MS) and Traditional Versus Early Aggressive Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis (TREAT-MS) trials, for example, evaluate whether treatment should be initiated with one of the less efficacious agents with escalation as needed, or whether treatment should begin with a high-efficacy agent.

Both trials are currently on hold because of the pandemic, as is the Best Available Therapy Versus Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant for Multiple Sclerosis (BEAT-MS) study.

“There has been a lot of interest in hematopoietic stem cell transplants and where they fit into our overall treatment strategy, and this is intended to provide a more definitive answer,” Dr. Cohen said.
 

Making the most of down time

“The pandemic has been challenging” in terms of ongoing MS research, said Benjamin M. Segal, MD, chair of the Department of Neurology and director of the Neuroscience Research Institute at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

“With regard to the lab, our animal model experiments have been placed on hold. We have stopped collecting samples from clinical subjects for biomarker studies.

“However, my research team has been taking advantage of the time that has been freed up from bench work by analyzing data sets that had been placed aside, delving more deeply into the literature, and writing new grant proposals and articles,” he added.

Two of Dr. Segal’s trainees are writing review articles on the immunopathogenesis of MS and its treatment. Another postdoctoral candidate is writing a grant proposal to investigate how coinfection with a coronavirus modulates CNS pathology and the clinical course of an animal model of MS.

“I am asking my trainees to plan out experiments further in advance than they ever have before, so they are as prepared as possible to resume their research agendas once we are up and running again,” Dr. Segal said.

Confronting current challenges while planning for a future less disrupted by the pandemic is a common theme that emerges.

“The duration of this [pandemic] will dictate how we analyze the data at the end [for the US POINTER study]. There is a large group of statisticians working on this,” Dr. Snyder said.

Dr. Sperling of Harvard Medical School also remains undeterred. “This is definitely a challenging time, as we must not allow the COVID-19 to interfere with our essential mission to find a successful treatment to prevent cognitive decline in AD. We do need, however, to be as flexible as possible to protect our participants and minimize the impact to our overall study integrity,” she said.
 

NIH guidance

Dr. Molinuevo Guix, of the Barcelona Brain Research Center, is also determined to continue his Alzheimer’s disease research. “I am aware that after the crisis, there will be less [risk] but still a COVID-19 infection risk, so apart from trying to generate part of our visits virtually, we want to make sure we have all necessary safety measures in place. We remain very active to preserve the work we have done to keep up the fight against Alzheimer’s and dementia,” he said.

Such forward thinking also applies to major stroke trials, said Dr. Broderick of the University of Cincinnati. “As soon as we shut down enrollment in stroke trials, we immediately began to make plans about how and when we can restart our stroke trials,” he explained. “One of our trials can do every step of the trial process remotely without direct in-person interactions and will be able to restart soon.”

An individualized approach is needed, Dr. Broderick added. “For trials involving necessary in-person and hands-on assessments, we will need to consider how best to use protective equipment and expanded testing that will likely match the ongoing clinical care and requirements at a given institution.

“Even if a trial officially reopens enrollment, the decision to enroll locally will need to follow local institutional environment and guidelines. Thus, restart of trial enrollment will not likely be uniform, similar to how trials often start in the first place,” Dr. Broderick said.

The NIH published uniform standards for researchers across its institutes to help guide them during the pandemic. Future contingency plans also are underway at the NINDS.

“As the pandemic wanes and in-person research activities restart, it will be important to have in place safety measures that prevent a resurgence of the virus, such as proper personal protective equipment for staff and research participants, said Dr. Wright, the clinical research director at NINDS.

For clinical trials, NINDS is prepared to provide supplemental funds to trial investigators to help support additional activities undertaken as a result of the pandemic.

“This has been an instructive experience. The pandemic will end, and we will resume much of our old patterns of behavior,” said Ohio State’s Dr. Segal. “But some of the strategies that we have employed to get through this time will continue to influence the way we communicate information, plan experiments, and prioritize research activities in the future, to good effect.”

Drs. Snyder, Sperling, Molinuevo Guix, Elkind, Broderick, Wright, Cohen, and Segal have disclosed no relevant disclosures.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

With some pivotal trials on hold, the COVID-19 pandemic is slowing the pace of research in Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, and multiple sclerosis (MS).

However, researchers remain determined to forge ahead – with many redesigning their studies, at least in part to optimize the safety of their participants and research staff.

Keeping people engaged while protocols are on hold; expanding normal safety considerations; and re-enlisting statisticians to keep their findings as significant as possible are just some of study survival strategies underway.
 

Alzheimer’s disease research on hold

The pandemic is having a significant impact on Alzheimer’s disease research, and medical research in general, says Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president, Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association.

“Many clinical trials worldwide are pausing, changing, or halting the testing of the drug or the intervention,” she told Medscape Medical News. “How the teams have adapted depends on the study,” she added. “As you can imagine, things are changing on a daily basis.”

The US Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER) trial, for example, is on hold until at least May 31. The Alzheimer’s Association is helping to implement and fund the study along with Wake Forest University Medical Center.

“We’re not randomizing participants at this point in time and the intervention — which is based on a team meeting, and there is a social aspect to that — has been paused,” Dr. Snyder said.

Another pivotal study underway is the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s study (the A4 Study). Investigators are evaluating if an anti-amyloid antibody, solanezumab (Eli Lilly), can slow memory loss among people with amyloid on imaging but no symptoms of cognitive decline at baseline.

“The A4 Study is definitely continuing. However, in an effort to minimize risk to participants, site staff and study integrity, we have implemented an optional study hiatus for both the double-blind and open-label extension phases,” lead investigator Reisa Anne Sperling, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

“We wanted to prioritize the safety of our participants as well as the ability of participants to remain in the study … despite disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Sperling, who is professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

The ultimate goal is for A4 participants to receive the full number of planned infusions and assessments, even if it takes longer, she added.

Many Alzheimer’s disease researchers outside the United States face similar challenges. “As you probably are well aware, Spain is now in a complete lockdown. This has affected research centers like ours, the Barcelona Brain Research Center, and the way we work,” José Luís Molinuevo Guix, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

All participants in observational studies like the ALFA+ study and initiatives, as well as those in trials including PENSA and AB1601, “are not allowed, by law, to come in, hence from a safety perspective we are on good grounds,” added Dr. Molinuevo Guix, who directs the Alzheimer’s disease and other cognitive disorders unit at the Hospital Clinic de Barcelona.

The investigators are creating protocols for communicating with participants during the pandemic and for restarting visits safely after the lockdown has ended.
 

Stroke studies amended or suspended

A similar situation is occurring in stroke trials. Stroke is “obviously an acute disease, as well as a disease that requires secondary prevention,” Mitchell Elkind, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association, told Medscape Medical News.

“One could argue that patients with stroke are going to be in the hospital anyway – why not enroll them in a study? They’re not incurring any additional risk,” he said. “But the staff have to come in to see them, and we’re really trying to avoid exposure.”

One ongoing trial, the Atrial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs In Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke (ARCADIA), stopped randomly assigning new participants to secondary prevention with apixaban or aspirin because of COVID-19. However, Dr. Elkind and colleagues plan to provide medication to the 440 people already in the trial.

“Wherever possible, the study coordinators are shipping the drug to people and doing follow-up visits by phone or video,” said Dr. Elkind, chief of the Division of Neurology Clinical Outcomes Research and Population Sciences at Columbia University in New York City.

Protecting patients, staff, and ultimately society is a “major driving force in stopping the randomizations,” he stressed.

ARCADIA is part of the StrokeNet prevention trials network, run by the NIH’s National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Additional pivotal trials include the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) and the Multi-arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis (MOST) studies, he said.

Joseph Broderick, MD, director of the national NIH StrokeNet, agreed that safety comes first. “It was the decision of the StrokeNet leadership and the principal investigators of the trials that we needed to hold recruitment of new patients while we worked on adapting processes of enrollment to ensure the safety of both patients and researchers interacting with study patients,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Potential risks vary based on the study intervention and the need for in-person interactions. Trials that include stimulation devices or physical therapy, for example, might be most affected, added Dr. Broderick, professor and director of the UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio.

Nevertheless, “there are potential ways … to move as much as possible toward telemedicine and digital interactions during this time.”
 

Multiple challenges in multiple sclerosis

At the national level, the COVID-19 pandemic has had an “unprecedented impact on almost all the clinical trials funded by NINDS,” said Clinton Wright, MD, director of the Division of Clinical Research at NINDS. “Investigators have had to adapt quickly.”

Supplementing existing grants with money to conduct research on COVID-19 and pursuing research opportunities from different institutes are “some of the creative approaches [that] have come from the NIH [National Institutes of Health] itself,” Dr. Wright said. “Other creative approaches have come from investigators trying to keep their studies and trials going during the pandemic.”

In clinical trials, “everything from electronic consent to in-home research drug delivery is being brought to bear.”

“A few ongoing trials have been able to modify their protocols to obtain consent and carry out evaluations remotely by telephone or videoconferencing,” Dr. Wright said. “This is especially critical for trials that involve medical management of specific risk factors or conditions, where suspension of the trial could itself have adverse consequences due to reduced engagement with research participants.”

For participants already in MS studies, “each upcoming visit is assessed for whether it’s critical or could be done virtually or just skipped. If a person needs a treatment that cannot be postponed or skipped, they come in,” Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the Experimental Therapeutics Program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, told Medscape Medical News.

New study enrollment is largely on hold and study visits for existing participants are limited, said Dr. Cohen, who is also president of the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Some of the major ongoing trials in MS are “looking at very fundamental questions in the field,” Dr. Cohen said. The Determining the Effectiveness of earLy Intensive Versus Escalation Approaches for RRMS (DELIVER-MS) and Traditional Versus Early Aggressive Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis (TREAT-MS) trials, for example, evaluate whether treatment should be initiated with one of the less efficacious agents with escalation as needed, or whether treatment should begin with a high-efficacy agent.

Both trials are currently on hold because of the pandemic, as is the Best Available Therapy Versus Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant for Multiple Sclerosis (BEAT-MS) study.

“There has been a lot of interest in hematopoietic stem cell transplants and where they fit into our overall treatment strategy, and this is intended to provide a more definitive answer,” Dr. Cohen said.
 

Making the most of down time

“The pandemic has been challenging” in terms of ongoing MS research, said Benjamin M. Segal, MD, chair of the Department of Neurology and director of the Neuroscience Research Institute at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

“With regard to the lab, our animal model experiments have been placed on hold. We have stopped collecting samples from clinical subjects for biomarker studies.

“However, my research team has been taking advantage of the time that has been freed up from bench work by analyzing data sets that had been placed aside, delving more deeply into the literature, and writing new grant proposals and articles,” he added.

Two of Dr. Segal’s trainees are writing review articles on the immunopathogenesis of MS and its treatment. Another postdoctoral candidate is writing a grant proposal to investigate how coinfection with a coronavirus modulates CNS pathology and the clinical course of an animal model of MS.

“I am asking my trainees to plan out experiments further in advance than they ever have before, so they are as prepared as possible to resume their research agendas once we are up and running again,” Dr. Segal said.

Confronting current challenges while planning for a future less disrupted by the pandemic is a common theme that emerges.

“The duration of this [pandemic] will dictate how we analyze the data at the end [for the US POINTER study]. There is a large group of statisticians working on this,” Dr. Snyder said.

Dr. Sperling of Harvard Medical School also remains undeterred. “This is definitely a challenging time, as we must not allow the COVID-19 to interfere with our essential mission to find a successful treatment to prevent cognitive decline in AD. We do need, however, to be as flexible as possible to protect our participants and minimize the impact to our overall study integrity,” she said.
 

NIH guidance

Dr. Molinuevo Guix, of the Barcelona Brain Research Center, is also determined to continue his Alzheimer’s disease research. “I am aware that after the crisis, there will be less [risk] but still a COVID-19 infection risk, so apart from trying to generate part of our visits virtually, we want to make sure we have all necessary safety measures in place. We remain very active to preserve the work we have done to keep up the fight against Alzheimer’s and dementia,” he said.

Such forward thinking also applies to major stroke trials, said Dr. Broderick of the University of Cincinnati. “As soon as we shut down enrollment in stroke trials, we immediately began to make plans about how and when we can restart our stroke trials,” he explained. “One of our trials can do every step of the trial process remotely without direct in-person interactions and will be able to restart soon.”

An individualized approach is needed, Dr. Broderick added. “For trials involving necessary in-person and hands-on assessments, we will need to consider how best to use protective equipment and expanded testing that will likely match the ongoing clinical care and requirements at a given institution.

“Even if a trial officially reopens enrollment, the decision to enroll locally will need to follow local institutional environment and guidelines. Thus, restart of trial enrollment will not likely be uniform, similar to how trials often start in the first place,” Dr. Broderick said.

The NIH published uniform standards for researchers across its institutes to help guide them during the pandemic. Future contingency plans also are underway at the NINDS.

“As the pandemic wanes and in-person research activities restart, it will be important to have in place safety measures that prevent a resurgence of the virus, such as proper personal protective equipment for staff and research participants, said Dr. Wright, the clinical research director at NINDS.

For clinical trials, NINDS is prepared to provide supplemental funds to trial investigators to help support additional activities undertaken as a result of the pandemic.

“This has been an instructive experience. The pandemic will end, and we will resume much of our old patterns of behavior,” said Ohio State’s Dr. Segal. “But some of the strategies that we have employed to get through this time will continue to influence the way we communicate information, plan experiments, and prioritize research activities in the future, to good effect.”

Drs. Snyder, Sperling, Molinuevo Guix, Elkind, Broderick, Wright, Cohen, and Segal have disclosed no relevant disclosures.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two rare neurologic conditions in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 add more evidence that unusual neurologic manifestations can arise in patients infected with the virus. A 50-year-old man developed Miller Fisher syndrome and a 39-year-old man developed polyneuritis cranialis. Both are variants of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), which physicians in China and Italy also linked to COVID-19 infection, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

In both cases, physicians made the diagnoses based on abnormal eye examinations. The two patients responded to treatment and improved over 2 weeks, with only the 50-year-old featuring residual symptoms of anosmia and ageusia.

The report was published online April 17 in Neurology.

The 50-year-old man was admitted to an emergency room with a temperature of 99.9°F (37.7°C). He reported 2 days of vertical diplopia, perioral paresthesias, and gait instability. His neurologic examination showed intact cognitive function and language.

Five days earlier he developed a cough, malaise, headache, low back pain, fever, anosmia, and ageusia.

His neuro-ophthalmologic examination showed right hypertropia in all fields of gaze, severe limitations to the adduction and downgaze movements of his right eye, and left eye nystagmus on left gaze. These findings were consistent with right internuclear ophthalmoparesis and right fascicular oculomotor palsy.

He responded to intravenous (IV) immunoglobulin therapy and was discharged home 2 weeks after admission.

The 39-year-old man was admitted to the emergency room with acute onset diplopia and ageusia. Three days earlier he had presented with diarrhea, a low-grade fever and in generally poor condition, without any headache, respiratory symptoms, or dyspnea.

He showed esotropia of 10 prism diopters at distance and 4 prism diopters at near, severe abduction deficits in both eyes, and fixation nystagmus, with the upper gaze more impaired, all consistent with bilateral abducens palsy.

The patient was discharged home and treated symptomatically with acetaminophen and telemedicine monitoring “due to a complete hospital saturation with COVID-19 patients,” wrote the researchers, led by Consuelo Gutiérrez-Ortiz, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias, Madrid, Spain.

Two weeks later, he had made a complete neurologic recovery with no ageusia, complete eye movements, and normal deep tendon reflexes.

“Fisher syndrome and polyneuritis cranialis in these two patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection could be simply coincidental. However, taking into account the temporal relationship, we feel that COVID-19 might have been responsible for the development of these two neurological pictures,” the authors noted.

European Regional Development Funds (FEDER) supported this research.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two rare neurologic conditions in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 add more evidence that unusual neurologic manifestations can arise in patients infected with the virus. A 50-year-old man developed Miller Fisher syndrome and a 39-year-old man developed polyneuritis cranialis. Both are variants of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), which physicians in China and Italy also linked to COVID-19 infection, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

In both cases, physicians made the diagnoses based on abnormal eye examinations. The two patients responded to treatment and improved over 2 weeks, with only the 50-year-old featuring residual symptoms of anosmia and ageusia.

The report was published online April 17 in Neurology.

The 50-year-old man was admitted to an emergency room with a temperature of 99.9°F (37.7°C). He reported 2 days of vertical diplopia, perioral paresthesias, and gait instability. His neurologic examination showed intact cognitive function and language.

Five days earlier he developed a cough, malaise, headache, low back pain, fever, anosmia, and ageusia.

His neuro-ophthalmologic examination showed right hypertropia in all fields of gaze, severe limitations to the adduction and downgaze movements of his right eye, and left eye nystagmus on left gaze. These findings were consistent with right internuclear ophthalmoparesis and right fascicular oculomotor palsy.

He responded to intravenous (IV) immunoglobulin therapy and was discharged home 2 weeks after admission.

The 39-year-old man was admitted to the emergency room with acute onset diplopia and ageusia. Three days earlier he had presented with diarrhea, a low-grade fever and in generally poor condition, without any headache, respiratory symptoms, or dyspnea.

He showed esotropia of 10 prism diopters at distance and 4 prism diopters at near, severe abduction deficits in both eyes, and fixation nystagmus, with the upper gaze more impaired, all consistent with bilateral abducens palsy.

The patient was discharged home and treated symptomatically with acetaminophen and telemedicine monitoring “due to a complete hospital saturation with COVID-19 patients,” wrote the researchers, led by Consuelo Gutiérrez-Ortiz, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias, Madrid, Spain.

Two weeks later, he had made a complete neurologic recovery with no ageusia, complete eye movements, and normal deep tendon reflexes.

“Fisher syndrome and polyneuritis cranialis in these two patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection could be simply coincidental. However, taking into account the temporal relationship, we feel that COVID-19 might have been responsible for the development of these two neurological pictures,” the authors noted.

European Regional Development Funds (FEDER) supported this research.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two rare neurologic conditions in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 add more evidence that unusual neurologic manifestations can arise in patients infected with the virus. A 50-year-old man developed Miller Fisher syndrome and a 39-year-old man developed polyneuritis cranialis. Both are variants of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), which physicians in China and Italy also linked to COVID-19 infection, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

In both cases, physicians made the diagnoses based on abnormal eye examinations. The two patients responded to treatment and improved over 2 weeks, with only the 50-year-old featuring residual symptoms of anosmia and ageusia.

The report was published online April 17 in Neurology.

The 50-year-old man was admitted to an emergency room with a temperature of 99.9°F (37.7°C). He reported 2 days of vertical diplopia, perioral paresthesias, and gait instability. His neurologic examination showed intact cognitive function and language.

Five days earlier he developed a cough, malaise, headache, low back pain, fever, anosmia, and ageusia.

His neuro-ophthalmologic examination showed right hypertropia in all fields of gaze, severe limitations to the adduction and downgaze movements of his right eye, and left eye nystagmus on left gaze. These findings were consistent with right internuclear ophthalmoparesis and right fascicular oculomotor palsy.

He responded to intravenous (IV) immunoglobulin therapy and was discharged home 2 weeks after admission.

The 39-year-old man was admitted to the emergency room with acute onset diplopia and ageusia. Three days earlier he had presented with diarrhea, a low-grade fever and in generally poor condition, without any headache, respiratory symptoms, or dyspnea.

He showed esotropia of 10 prism diopters at distance and 4 prism diopters at near, severe abduction deficits in both eyes, and fixation nystagmus, with the upper gaze more impaired, all consistent with bilateral abducens palsy.

The patient was discharged home and treated symptomatically with acetaminophen and telemedicine monitoring “due to a complete hospital saturation with COVID-19 patients,” wrote the researchers, led by Consuelo Gutiérrez-Ortiz, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias, Madrid, Spain.

Two weeks later, he had made a complete neurologic recovery with no ageusia, complete eye movements, and normal deep tendon reflexes.

“Fisher syndrome and polyneuritis cranialis in these two patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection could be simply coincidental. However, taking into account the temporal relationship, we feel that COVID-19 might have been responsible for the development of these two neurological pictures,” the authors noted.

European Regional Development Funds (FEDER) supported this research.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.