Megan Brooks

While the use of artificial intelligence (AI) during colonoscopy may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it may also add to patient burden in terms of increased colonoscopy frequency and, in turn, health care costs, a new study suggests.

The study, published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, found that colonoscopy plus AI (vs. colonoscopy alone) increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance by roughly 35% in the United States and Japan and by about 20% in Europe.

“It’s certainly possible that AI will lead to more frequent surveillance for some patients, but it may balance itself out given that recent surveillance guidelines have pushed off the surveillance interval depending on the size of the polyp,” senior author Seth A. Gross, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
 

Impact on intensive colonoscopy surveillance

AI tools have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy, but what impact this has on the frequency of surveillance colonoscopy is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Gross and an international team conducted a pooled analysis of nine randomized, controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. Five trials were done in China, two in Italy, one in Japan, and one in the United States.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (that is, 3-year interval).

Among a total of 5,796 patients (mean age, 53 years; 51% male), 2,894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2,902 underwent standard colonoscopy without AI assistance.

Higher ADRs in the AI-assisted colonoscopy groups were observed in all of the trials.

When following the U.S. and Japanese guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended for intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group, which is an absolute difference of 2.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%) and a risk ratio of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.16-1.57). When following the European guidelines, the increase was from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%), which is an absolute difference of 1.3% (95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%) and a RR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.01-1.47).

The increases are primarily the result of reallocation of patients from low-risk to intermediate- or high-risk categories, the investigators said. That shift is likely caused by the AI-related increase in adenomas per colonoscopy, which may lead to more effective cancer prevention.

“AI does show us that there’s always an opportunity for improvement when we do screening and surveillance colonoscopy,” Dr. Gross said. “The goal is the same, which is to offer the highest quality colonoscopy exam and the best possible outcome for our patients, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see.”
 

Cost analysis needed

Dr. Gross noted that he sees a cost-effectiveness analysis of AI in colonoscopy in the future.

“As this becomes more and more part of regular clinical practice, if it’s not being done already, someone will look at the cost-effectiveness of incorporating AI, just like they would for other technologies that come into the area of endoscopy,” Dr. Gross said.

Commenting on the study, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist with University of Chicago Medicine, said he believes that the “benefit of improved adenoma detection and resulting reduction in colon cancer would outweigh the downsides of increased colonoscopy frequency and cost.”

“However, an economic impact study would need to be performed to answer this question,” added Dr. Sakuraba, who wasn’t involved with this study.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gross has served as a consultant for Olympus, Cook, Pentax, Ambu, and Iterative Scopes, and served on the advisory board for Docbot. Dr. Sakuraba reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While the use of artificial intelligence (AI) during colonoscopy may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it may also add to patient burden in terms of increased colonoscopy frequency and, in turn, health care costs, a new study suggests.

The study, published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, found that colonoscopy plus AI (vs. colonoscopy alone) increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance by roughly 35% in the United States and Japan and by about 20% in Europe.

“It’s certainly possible that AI will lead to more frequent surveillance for some patients, but it may balance itself out given that recent surveillance guidelines have pushed off the surveillance interval depending on the size of the polyp,” senior author Seth A. Gross, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
 

Impact on intensive colonoscopy surveillance

AI tools have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy, but what impact this has on the frequency of surveillance colonoscopy is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Gross and an international team conducted a pooled analysis of nine randomized, controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. Five trials were done in China, two in Italy, one in Japan, and one in the United States.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (that is, 3-year interval).

Among a total of 5,796 patients (mean age, 53 years; 51% male), 2,894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2,902 underwent standard colonoscopy without AI assistance.

Higher ADRs in the AI-assisted colonoscopy groups were observed in all of the trials.

When following the U.S. and Japanese guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended for intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group, which is an absolute difference of 2.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%) and a risk ratio of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.16-1.57). When following the European guidelines, the increase was from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%), which is an absolute difference of 1.3% (95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%) and a RR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.01-1.47).

The increases are primarily the result of reallocation of patients from low-risk to intermediate- or high-risk categories, the investigators said. That shift is likely caused by the AI-related increase in adenomas per colonoscopy, which may lead to more effective cancer prevention.

“AI does show us that there’s always an opportunity for improvement when we do screening and surveillance colonoscopy,” Dr. Gross said. “The goal is the same, which is to offer the highest quality colonoscopy exam and the best possible outcome for our patients, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see.”
 

Cost analysis needed

Dr. Gross noted that he sees a cost-effectiveness analysis of AI in colonoscopy in the future.

“As this becomes more and more part of regular clinical practice, if it’s not being done already, someone will look at the cost-effectiveness of incorporating AI, just like they would for other technologies that come into the area of endoscopy,” Dr. Gross said.

Commenting on the study, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist with University of Chicago Medicine, said he believes that the “benefit of improved adenoma detection and resulting reduction in colon cancer would outweigh the downsides of increased colonoscopy frequency and cost.”

“However, an economic impact study would need to be performed to answer this question,” added Dr. Sakuraba, who wasn’t involved with this study.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gross has served as a consultant for Olympus, Cook, Pentax, Ambu, and Iterative Scopes, and served on the advisory board for Docbot. Dr. Sakuraba reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While the use of artificial intelligence (AI) during colonoscopy may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it may also add to patient burden in terms of increased colonoscopy frequency and, in turn, health care costs, a new study suggests.

The study, published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, found that colonoscopy plus AI (vs. colonoscopy alone) increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance by roughly 35% in the United States and Japan and by about 20% in Europe.

“It’s certainly possible that AI will lead to more frequent surveillance for some patients, but it may balance itself out given that recent surveillance guidelines have pushed off the surveillance interval depending on the size of the polyp,” senior author Seth A. Gross, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
 

Impact on intensive colonoscopy surveillance

AI tools have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy, but what impact this has on the frequency of surveillance colonoscopy is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Gross and an international team conducted a pooled analysis of nine randomized, controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. Five trials were done in China, two in Italy, one in Japan, and one in the United States.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (that is, 3-year interval).

Among a total of 5,796 patients (mean age, 53 years; 51% male), 2,894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2,902 underwent standard colonoscopy without AI assistance.

Higher ADRs in the AI-assisted colonoscopy groups were observed in all of the trials.

When following the U.S. and Japanese guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended for intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group, which is an absolute difference of 2.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%) and a risk ratio of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.16-1.57). When following the European guidelines, the increase was from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%), which is an absolute difference of 1.3% (95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%) and a RR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.01-1.47).

The increases are primarily the result of reallocation of patients from low-risk to intermediate- or high-risk categories, the investigators said. That shift is likely caused by the AI-related increase in adenomas per colonoscopy, which may lead to more effective cancer prevention.

“AI does show us that there’s always an opportunity for improvement when we do screening and surveillance colonoscopy,” Dr. Gross said. “The goal is the same, which is to offer the highest quality colonoscopy exam and the best possible outcome for our patients, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see.”
 

Cost analysis needed

Dr. Gross noted that he sees a cost-effectiveness analysis of AI in colonoscopy in the future.

“As this becomes more and more part of regular clinical practice, if it’s not being done already, someone will look at the cost-effectiveness of incorporating AI, just like they would for other technologies that come into the area of endoscopy,” Dr. Gross said.

Commenting on the study, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist with University of Chicago Medicine, said he believes that the “benefit of improved adenoma detection and resulting reduction in colon cancer would outweigh the downsides of increased colonoscopy frequency and cost.”

“However, an economic impact study would need to be performed to answer this question,” added Dr. Sakuraba, who wasn’t involved with this study.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gross has served as a consultant for Olympus, Cook, Pentax, Ambu, and Iterative Scopes, and served on the advisory board for Docbot. Dr. Sakuraba reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with preeclampsia with severe features benefit from treatment with oral nifedipine during labor and delivery, results of a randomized controlled trial suggest.

The study showed that intrapartum administration of extended-release oral nifedipine was safe and reduced the need for acute intravenous or immediate-release oral hypertensive therapy. There was a trend toward fewer cesarean deliveries and less need for neonatal intensive care.

The results suggest that providers “consider initiating long-acting nifedipine every 24 hours for individuals with preeclampsia with severe features who are undergoing induction of labor,” Erin M. Cleary, MD, with the Ohio State University, Columbus, told this news organization.

“There is no need to wait until patients require one or more doses of acute [antihypertensive] therapy before starting long-acting nifedipine, as long as they otherwise meet criteria for preeclampsia with severe features,” Dr. Cleary said.

The study was published online in Hypertension.

Clear benefits for mom and baby

Preeclampsia complicates up to 8% of pregnancies and often leads to significant maternal and perinatal morbidity.

“We know that bringing down very high blood pressure to a safer range will help prevent maternal and fetal complications. However, besides rapid-acting, intravenous medicines for severe hypertension during pregnancy, optimal management for hypertension during the labor and delivery process has not been studied,” Dr. Cleary explains in a news release.

In a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study, the researchers assessed whether treatment with long-acting nifedipine could prevent severe hypertension in women with a singleton or twin gestation and preeclampsia with severe features, as defined according to American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology criteria.

During induction of labor between 22 and 41 weeks’ gestation, 55 women were assigned to 30-mg oral extended-release nifedipine, and 55 received matching placebo, administered every 24 hours until delivery.

The primary outcome was receipt of one or more doses of acute hypertension therapy for blood pressure of at least 160/110 mm Hg that was sustained for 10 minutes or longer.

The primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer women in the nifedipine group than in the placebo group (34% vs. 55%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97; number needed to treat, 4.7).

Fewer women in the nifedipine group than in the placebo group required cesarean delivery, although this difference did not meet statistical significance (21% vs. 35%; RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.31-1.15).

There was no between-group difference in the rate of hypotensive episodes, including symptomatic hypotension requiring phenylephrine for pressure support following neuraxial anesthesia (9.4% vs. 8.2%; RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.33-4.06).

After delivery, there was no difference in the rate of persistently severe blood pressure that required acute therapy and maintenance therapy at time of discharge home.

Birth weight and rates of births of neonates who were small for gestational age were similar in the two groups. There was a trend for decreased rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission among infants born to mothers who received nifedipine (29% vs. 47%; RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.37-1.02).

The neonatal composite outcome was also similar between the nifedipine group and the placebo group (36% vs. 41%; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51-1.37). The composite outcome included Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 minutes, hyperbilirubinemia requiring phototherapy, hypoglycemia requiring intravenous therapy, or supplemental oxygen therapy beyond the first 24 hours of life.

“Our findings support the growing trend in more active management of hypertension in pregnancy with daily maintenance medications,” Dr. Cleary and colleagues note in their article.

“Even in the absence of preeclampsia, emerging research suggests pregnant individuals may benefit from initiating and titrating antihypertensive therapy at goals similar to the nonobstetric population,” they add.

Potentially practice changing

Reached for comment, Vesna Garovic, MD, PhD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that this is an “important initial paper to start a very important conversation about blood pressure treatment goals in preeclampsia.”

Dr. Garovic noted that for chronic hypertension in pregnancy, the blood pressure treatment goal is now less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg.

“However, this does not apply to preeclampsia, where quite high blood pressures, such 160/110 mm Hg or higher, are still allowed before treatment is considered,” Dr. Garovic said.

“This study shows that as soon as you reach that level, treatment with oral nifedipine should be initiated and that timely initiation of oral nifedipine may optimize blood pressure control and decrease the need for intravenous therapy subsequently, and that has good effects on the mother without adversely affecting the baby,” Dr. Garovic said.

“This is potentially practice changing,” Dr. Garovic added. “But the elephant in the room is the question of why we are waiting for blood pressure to reach such dangerous levels before initiating treatment, and whether initiating treatment at a blood pressure of 140/90 or higher may prevent blood pressure reaching these high levels and women developing complications that are the consequence of severe hypertension.”

The study was funded by the Ohio State University’s Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Dr. Cleary and Dr. Garovic have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with preeclampsia with severe features benefit from treatment with oral nifedipine during labor and delivery, results of a randomized controlled trial suggest.

The study showed that intrapartum administration of extended-release oral nifedipine was safe and reduced the need for acute intravenous or immediate-release oral hypertensive therapy. There was a trend toward fewer cesarean deliveries and less need for neonatal intensive care.

The results suggest that providers “consider initiating long-acting nifedipine every 24 hours for individuals with preeclampsia with severe features who are undergoing induction of labor,” Erin M. Cleary, MD, with the Ohio State University, Columbus, told this news organization.

“There is no need to wait until patients require one or more doses of acute [antihypertensive] therapy before starting long-acting nifedipine, as long as they otherwise meet criteria for preeclampsia with severe features,” Dr. Cleary said.

The study was published online in Hypertension.

Clear benefits for mom and baby

Preeclampsia complicates up to 8% of pregnancies and often leads to significant maternal and perinatal morbidity.

“We know that bringing down very high blood pressure to a safer range will help prevent maternal and fetal complications. However, besides rapid-acting, intravenous medicines for severe hypertension during pregnancy, optimal management for hypertension during the labor and delivery process has not been studied,” Dr. Cleary explains in a news release.

In a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study, the researchers assessed whether treatment with long-acting nifedipine could prevent severe hypertension in women with a singleton or twin gestation and preeclampsia with severe features, as defined according to American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology criteria.

During induction of labor between 22 and 41 weeks’ gestation, 55 women were assigned to 30-mg oral extended-release nifedipine, and 55 received matching placebo, administered every 24 hours until delivery.

The primary outcome was receipt of one or more doses of acute hypertension therapy for blood pressure of at least 160/110 mm Hg that was sustained for 10 minutes or longer.

The primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer women in the nifedipine group than in the placebo group (34% vs. 55%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97; number needed to treat, 4.7).

Fewer women in the nifedipine group than in the placebo group required cesarean delivery, although this difference did not meet statistical significance (21% vs. 35%; RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.31-1.15).

There was no between-group difference in the rate of hypotensive episodes, including symptomatic hypotension requiring phenylephrine for pressure support following neuraxial anesthesia (9.4% vs. 8.2%; RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.33-4.06).

After delivery, there was no difference in the rate of persistently severe blood pressure that required acute therapy and maintenance therapy at time of discharge home.

Birth weight and rates of births of neonates who were small for gestational age were similar in the two groups. There was a trend for decreased rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission among infants born to mothers who received nifedipine (29% vs. 47%; RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.37-1.02).

The neonatal composite outcome was also similar between the nifedipine group and the placebo group (36% vs. 41%; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51-1.37). The composite outcome included Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 minutes, hyperbilirubinemia requiring phototherapy, hypoglycemia requiring intravenous therapy, or supplemental oxygen therapy beyond the first 24 hours of life.

“Our findings support the growing trend in more active management of hypertension in pregnancy with daily maintenance medications,” Dr. Cleary and colleagues note in their article.

“Even in the absence of preeclampsia, emerging research suggests pregnant individuals may benefit from initiating and titrating antihypertensive therapy at goals similar to the nonobstetric population,” they add.

Potentially practice changing

Reached for comment, Vesna Garovic, MD, PhD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that this is an “important initial paper to start a very important conversation about blood pressure treatment goals in preeclampsia.”

Dr. Garovic noted that for chronic hypertension in pregnancy, the blood pressure treatment goal is now less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg.

“However, this does not apply to preeclampsia, where quite high blood pressures, such 160/110 mm Hg or higher, are still allowed before treatment is considered,” Dr. Garovic said.

“This study shows that as soon as you reach that level, treatment with oral nifedipine should be initiated and that timely initiation of oral nifedipine may optimize blood pressure control and decrease the need for intravenous therapy subsequently, and that has good effects on the mother without adversely affecting the baby,” Dr. Garovic said.

“This is potentially practice changing,” Dr. Garovic added. “But the elephant in the room is the question of why we are waiting for blood pressure to reach such dangerous levels before initiating treatment, and whether initiating treatment at a blood pressure of 140/90 or higher may prevent blood pressure reaching these high levels and women developing complications that are the consequence of severe hypertension.”

The study was funded by the Ohio State University’s Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Dr. Cleary and Dr. Garovic have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with preeclampsia with severe features benefit from treatment with oral nifedipine during labor and delivery, results of a randomized controlled trial suggest.

The study showed that intrapartum administration of extended-release oral nifedipine was safe and reduced the need for acute intravenous or immediate-release oral hypertensive therapy. There was a trend toward fewer cesarean deliveries and less need for neonatal intensive care.

The results suggest that providers “consider initiating long-acting nifedipine every 24 hours for individuals with preeclampsia with severe features who are undergoing induction of labor,” Erin M. Cleary, MD, with the Ohio State University, Columbus, told this news organization.

“There is no need to wait until patients require one or more doses of acute [antihypertensive] therapy before starting long-acting nifedipine, as long as they otherwise meet criteria for preeclampsia with severe features,” Dr. Cleary said.

The study was published online in Hypertension.

Clear benefits for mom and baby

Preeclampsia complicates up to 8% of pregnancies and often leads to significant maternal and perinatal morbidity.

“We know that bringing down very high blood pressure to a safer range will help prevent maternal and fetal complications. However, besides rapid-acting, intravenous medicines for severe hypertension during pregnancy, optimal management for hypertension during the labor and delivery process has not been studied,” Dr. Cleary explains in a news release.

In a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study, the researchers assessed whether treatment with long-acting nifedipine could prevent severe hypertension in women with a singleton or twin gestation and preeclampsia with severe features, as defined according to American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology criteria.

During induction of labor between 22 and 41 weeks’ gestation, 55 women were assigned to 30-mg oral extended-release nifedipine, and 55 received matching placebo, administered every 24 hours until delivery.

The primary outcome was receipt of one or more doses of acute hypertension therapy for blood pressure of at least 160/110 mm Hg that was sustained for 10 minutes or longer.

The primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer women in the nifedipine group than in the placebo group (34% vs. 55%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97; number needed to treat, 4.7).

Fewer women in the nifedipine group than in the placebo group required cesarean delivery, although this difference did not meet statistical significance (21% vs. 35%; RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.31-1.15).

There was no between-group difference in the rate of hypotensive episodes, including symptomatic hypotension requiring phenylephrine for pressure support following neuraxial anesthesia (9.4% vs. 8.2%; RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.33-4.06).

After delivery, there was no difference in the rate of persistently severe blood pressure that required acute therapy and maintenance therapy at time of discharge home.

Birth weight and rates of births of neonates who were small for gestational age were similar in the two groups. There was a trend for decreased rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission among infants born to mothers who received nifedipine (29% vs. 47%; RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.37-1.02).

The neonatal composite outcome was also similar between the nifedipine group and the placebo group (36% vs. 41%; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51-1.37). The composite outcome included Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 minutes, hyperbilirubinemia requiring phototherapy, hypoglycemia requiring intravenous therapy, or supplemental oxygen therapy beyond the first 24 hours of life.

“Our findings support the growing trend in more active management of hypertension in pregnancy with daily maintenance medications,” Dr. Cleary and colleagues note in their article.

“Even in the absence of preeclampsia, emerging research suggests pregnant individuals may benefit from initiating and titrating antihypertensive therapy at goals similar to the nonobstetric population,” they add.

Potentially practice changing

Reached for comment, Vesna Garovic, MD, PhD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that this is an “important initial paper to start a very important conversation about blood pressure treatment goals in preeclampsia.”

Dr. Garovic noted that for chronic hypertension in pregnancy, the blood pressure treatment goal is now less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg.

“However, this does not apply to preeclampsia, where quite high blood pressures, such 160/110 mm Hg or higher, are still allowed before treatment is considered,” Dr. Garovic said.

“This study shows that as soon as you reach that level, treatment with oral nifedipine should be initiated and that timely initiation of oral nifedipine may optimize blood pressure control and decrease the need for intravenous therapy subsequently, and that has good effects on the mother without adversely affecting the baby,” Dr. Garovic said.

“This is potentially practice changing,” Dr. Garovic added. “But the elephant in the room is the question of why we are waiting for blood pressure to reach such dangerous levels before initiating treatment, and whether initiating treatment at a blood pressure of 140/90 or higher may prevent blood pressure reaching these high levels and women developing complications that are the consequence of severe hypertension.”

The study was funded by the Ohio State University’s Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Dr. Cleary and Dr. Garovic have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is safe and effective for individuals with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) that has been resistant to conventional therapy, a meta-analytic review confirms.

“DBS is a viable option for treatment-resistant OCD that can be expected to produce significant clinical benefit in about two out of three cases,” study investigator Wayne Goodman, MD, chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a statement.

50% reduction in symptoms

The analysis included 34 studies conducted from 2005 to 2021, including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 25 non-RCTs, involving 352 patients with treatment-resistant OCD.

Both RCTs and non-RCTs had a predominantly low risk of bias.

The results show an average 14.3-point, or 47%, reduction (P < .01) in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale scores with DBS at last follow-up, with no significant difference between RCTs and non-RCTs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients fully responded to the DBS at last follow-up, the authors found.

DBS for treatment-resistant OCD also had a “strong” effect on comorbid depression, with 47% of patients considered “full responders” relative to their preoperative (baseline) depression status and an additional 16% considered partial responders (with a 30%-49% reduction in pre/post-treatment depressive symptoms).

“The demonstrated effects of DBS in this report are even more impressive when one considers that these patients have failed numerous behavioral and pharmacological therapies,” said study investigator Eric Storch, PhD, professor and vice chair for the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor.

The rate of hardware-related complications was roughly 8% and infection rate was about 4% – in line with other data.

This study “offers hope for patients with severe symptoms of OCD whose disorder did not respond to a range of conventional therapies,” Dr. Goodman said.
 

The bigger story

Dr. Sheth said the challenges in getting appropriate OCD patients access to DBS are multifactorial.

“Psychiatrists and general practitioners and even patients are not aware of it, and insurance company policies are often out of date and ignorant of recent data such as those in this study,” Dr. Sheth explained.

“Hopefully, improved awareness in the future will reverse these trends and lead to increased access for patients in need of this therapy,” Dr. Sheth said.

Access to DBS for OCD is clearly the “bigger story” here, Brian Kopell, MD, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

This meta-analysis “confirms what all of us that do this with some regularity know – that DBS for OCD can be extremely helpful in patients who are refractory to standard OCD therapies,” said Dr. Kopell, department of neurosurgery and director, Center for Neuromodulation, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Yet, there is a dramatic difference in getting reimbursement for DBS in a case of dystonia vs. OCD.

In the United States, DBS has humanitarian device exemption for use in both dystonia and OCD, Dr. Kopell noted.

“Yet because dystonia is a movement disorder, I can get DBS for dystonia paid for by most private insurance – no big deal,” Dr. Kopell said.

“But OCD, because it’s deemed a psychiatric disorder, is treated like the redheaded stepchild and it’s monumentally hard to get insurance to pay for it – and if you can’t pay for it, you can’t do it. Simple as that,” he added.

The study was supported by the McNair Foundation and the Dana Foundation. Dr. Storch is a consultant for Biohaven and owns stock in nView. Dr. Sheth is a consultant for Boston Scientific, NeuroPace, Abbott, and Zimmer Biomet. Dr. Kopell reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is safe and effective for individuals with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) that has been resistant to conventional therapy, a meta-analytic review confirms.

“DBS is a viable option for treatment-resistant OCD that can be expected to produce significant clinical benefit in about two out of three cases,” study investigator Wayne Goodman, MD, chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a statement.

50% reduction in symptoms

The analysis included 34 studies conducted from 2005 to 2021, including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 25 non-RCTs, involving 352 patients with treatment-resistant OCD.

Both RCTs and non-RCTs had a predominantly low risk of bias.

The results show an average 14.3-point, or 47%, reduction (P < .01) in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale scores with DBS at last follow-up, with no significant difference between RCTs and non-RCTs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients fully responded to the DBS at last follow-up, the authors found.

DBS for treatment-resistant OCD also had a “strong” effect on comorbid depression, with 47% of patients considered “full responders” relative to their preoperative (baseline) depression status and an additional 16% considered partial responders (with a 30%-49% reduction in pre/post-treatment depressive symptoms).

“The demonstrated effects of DBS in this report are even more impressive when one considers that these patients have failed numerous behavioral and pharmacological therapies,” said study investigator Eric Storch, PhD, professor and vice chair for the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor.

The rate of hardware-related complications was roughly 8% and infection rate was about 4% – in line with other data.

This study “offers hope for patients with severe symptoms of OCD whose disorder did not respond to a range of conventional therapies,” Dr. Goodman said.
 

The bigger story

Dr. Sheth said the challenges in getting appropriate OCD patients access to DBS are multifactorial.

“Psychiatrists and general practitioners and even patients are not aware of it, and insurance company policies are often out of date and ignorant of recent data such as those in this study,” Dr. Sheth explained.

“Hopefully, improved awareness in the future will reverse these trends and lead to increased access for patients in need of this therapy,” Dr. Sheth said.

Access to DBS for OCD is clearly the “bigger story” here, Brian Kopell, MD, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

This meta-analysis “confirms what all of us that do this with some regularity know – that DBS for OCD can be extremely helpful in patients who are refractory to standard OCD therapies,” said Dr. Kopell, department of neurosurgery and director, Center for Neuromodulation, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Yet, there is a dramatic difference in getting reimbursement for DBS in a case of dystonia vs. OCD.

In the United States, DBS has humanitarian device exemption for use in both dystonia and OCD, Dr. Kopell noted.

“Yet because dystonia is a movement disorder, I can get DBS for dystonia paid for by most private insurance – no big deal,” Dr. Kopell said.

“But OCD, because it’s deemed a psychiatric disorder, is treated like the redheaded stepchild and it’s monumentally hard to get insurance to pay for it – and if you can’t pay for it, you can’t do it. Simple as that,” he added.

The study was supported by the McNair Foundation and the Dana Foundation. Dr. Storch is a consultant for Biohaven and owns stock in nView. Dr. Sheth is a consultant for Boston Scientific, NeuroPace, Abbott, and Zimmer Biomet. Dr. Kopell reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is safe and effective for individuals with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) that has been resistant to conventional therapy, a meta-analytic review confirms.

“DBS is a viable option for treatment-resistant OCD that can be expected to produce significant clinical benefit in about two out of three cases,” study investigator Wayne Goodman, MD, chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a statement.

50% reduction in symptoms

The analysis included 34 studies conducted from 2005 to 2021, including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 25 non-RCTs, involving 352 patients with treatment-resistant OCD.

Both RCTs and non-RCTs had a predominantly low risk of bias.

The results show an average 14.3-point, or 47%, reduction (P < .01) in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale scores with DBS at last follow-up, with no significant difference between RCTs and non-RCTs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients fully responded to the DBS at last follow-up, the authors found.

DBS for treatment-resistant OCD also had a “strong” effect on comorbid depression, with 47% of patients considered “full responders” relative to their preoperative (baseline) depression status and an additional 16% considered partial responders (with a 30%-49% reduction in pre/post-treatment depressive symptoms).

“The demonstrated effects of DBS in this report are even more impressive when one considers that these patients have failed numerous behavioral and pharmacological therapies,” said study investigator Eric Storch, PhD, professor and vice chair for the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor.

The rate of hardware-related complications was roughly 8% and infection rate was about 4% – in line with other data.

This study “offers hope for patients with severe symptoms of OCD whose disorder did not respond to a range of conventional therapies,” Dr. Goodman said.
 

The bigger story

Dr. Sheth said the challenges in getting appropriate OCD patients access to DBS are multifactorial.

“Psychiatrists and general practitioners and even patients are not aware of it, and insurance company policies are often out of date and ignorant of recent data such as those in this study,” Dr. Sheth explained.

“Hopefully, improved awareness in the future will reverse these trends and lead to increased access for patients in need of this therapy,” Dr. Sheth said.

Access to DBS for OCD is clearly the “bigger story” here, Brian Kopell, MD, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

This meta-analysis “confirms what all of us that do this with some regularity know – that DBS for OCD can be extremely helpful in patients who are refractory to standard OCD therapies,” said Dr. Kopell, department of neurosurgery and director, Center for Neuromodulation, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Yet, there is a dramatic difference in getting reimbursement for DBS in a case of dystonia vs. OCD.

In the United States, DBS has humanitarian device exemption for use in both dystonia and OCD, Dr. Kopell noted.

“Yet because dystonia is a movement disorder, I can get DBS for dystonia paid for by most private insurance – no big deal,” Dr. Kopell said.

“But OCD, because it’s deemed a psychiatric disorder, is treated like the redheaded stepchild and it’s monumentally hard to get insurance to pay for it – and if you can’t pay for it, you can’t do it. Simple as that,” he added.

The study was supported by the McNair Foundation and the Dana Foundation. Dr. Storch is a consultant for Biohaven and owns stock in nView. Dr. Sheth is a consultant for Boston Scientific, NeuroPace, Abbott, and Zimmer Biomet. Dr. Kopell reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid is associated with a greater than twofold increased risk for cancer in children of mothers with epilepsy, new data from a Scandinavian registry of more than 3 million pregnancies suggests.

The increased risk for cancer did not change after considering other factors that could explain the risk, such as use of antiseizure medication (ASM).

There was no increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy who used high-dose folic acid.

The results of this study “should be considered when the risks and benefits of folic acid supplements for women with epilepsy are discussed and before decisions about optimal dose recommendations are made,” the authors write.

“Although we believe that the association between prescription fills for high-dose folic acid and cancer in children born to mothers with epilepsy is robust, it is important to underline that these are the findings of one study only,” first author Håkon Magne Vegrim, MD, with University of Bergen (Norway) told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Women with epilepsy are advised to take high doses of folic acid before and during pregnancy owing to the risk for congenital malformations associated with ASM. Whether high-dose folic acid is associated with increases in the risk for childhood cancer is unknown.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed registry data from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden for 3.3 million children followed to a median age of 7.3 years.

Among the 27,784 children born to mothers with epilepsy, 5,934 (21.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 4.3 mg), with a cancer incidence rate of 42.5 per 100,000 person-years in 18 exposed cancer cases compared with 18.4 per 100,000 person-years in 29 unexposed cancer cases – yielding an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-6.3).

The absolute risk with exposure was 1.5% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.5%) in children of mothers with epilepsy compared with 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.1%) in children of mothers with epilepsy who were not exposed high-dose folic acid.

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid was not associated with an increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy.

In children of mothers without epilepsy, 46,646 (1.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 2.9 mg). There were 69 exposed and 4,927 unexposed cancer cases and an aHR for cancer of 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9-1.4) and absolute risk for cancer of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%).

There was no association between any specific ASM and childhood cancer.

“Removing mothers with any prescription fills for carbamazepine and valproate was not associated with the point estimate. Hence, these two ASMs were not important effect modifiers for the cancer association,” the investigators note in their study.

They also note that the most common childhood cancer types in children among mothers with epilepsy who took high-dose folic acid did not differ from the distribution in the general population.

“We need to get more knowledge about the potential mechanisms behind high-dose folic acid and childhood cancer, and it is important to identify the optimal dose to balance risks and benefits – and whether folic acid supplementation should be more individualized, based on factors like the serum level of folate and what type of antiseizure medication that is being used,” said Dr. Vegrim.
 

Practice changing?

Weighing in on the study, Elizabeth E. Gerard, MD, director of the Women with Epilepsy Program and associate professor of neurology at Northwestern University in Chicago, said, “There are known benefits of folic acid supplementation during pregnancy including a decreased risk of neural tube defects in the general population and improved neurodevelopmental outcomes in children born to mothers with and without epilepsy.”

“However, despite some expert guidelines recommending high-dose folic acid supplementation, there is a lack of certainty surrounding the ‘just right’ dose for patients with epilepsy who may become pregnant,” said Dr. Gerard, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Gerard, a member of the American Epilepsy Society, noted that other epidemiologic studies of folic acid supplementation and cancer have had “contradictory results, thus further research on this association will be needed. Additionally, differences in maternal/fetal folate metabolism and blood levels may be an important factor to study in the future.

“That said, this study definitely should cause us to pause and reevaluate the common practice of high-dose folic acid supplementation for patients with epilepsy who are considering pregnancy,” said Dr. Gerard.

The study was supported by the NordForsk Nordic Program on Health and Welfare. Dr. Vegrim and Dr. Gerard report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid is associated with a greater than twofold increased risk for cancer in children of mothers with epilepsy, new data from a Scandinavian registry of more than 3 million pregnancies suggests.

The increased risk for cancer did not change after considering other factors that could explain the risk, such as use of antiseizure medication (ASM).

There was no increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy who used high-dose folic acid.

The results of this study “should be considered when the risks and benefits of folic acid supplements for women with epilepsy are discussed and before decisions about optimal dose recommendations are made,” the authors write.

“Although we believe that the association between prescription fills for high-dose folic acid and cancer in children born to mothers with epilepsy is robust, it is important to underline that these are the findings of one study only,” first author Håkon Magne Vegrim, MD, with University of Bergen (Norway) told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Women with epilepsy are advised to take high doses of folic acid before and during pregnancy owing to the risk for congenital malformations associated with ASM. Whether high-dose folic acid is associated with increases in the risk for childhood cancer is unknown.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed registry data from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden for 3.3 million children followed to a median age of 7.3 years.

Among the 27,784 children born to mothers with epilepsy, 5,934 (21.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 4.3 mg), with a cancer incidence rate of 42.5 per 100,000 person-years in 18 exposed cancer cases compared with 18.4 per 100,000 person-years in 29 unexposed cancer cases – yielding an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-6.3).

The absolute risk with exposure was 1.5% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.5%) in children of mothers with epilepsy compared with 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.1%) in children of mothers with epilepsy who were not exposed high-dose folic acid.

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid was not associated with an increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy.

In children of mothers without epilepsy, 46,646 (1.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 2.9 mg). There were 69 exposed and 4,927 unexposed cancer cases and an aHR for cancer of 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9-1.4) and absolute risk for cancer of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%).

There was no association between any specific ASM and childhood cancer.

“Removing mothers with any prescription fills for carbamazepine and valproate was not associated with the point estimate. Hence, these two ASMs were not important effect modifiers for the cancer association,” the investigators note in their study.

They also note that the most common childhood cancer types in children among mothers with epilepsy who took high-dose folic acid did not differ from the distribution in the general population.

“We need to get more knowledge about the potential mechanisms behind high-dose folic acid and childhood cancer, and it is important to identify the optimal dose to balance risks and benefits – and whether folic acid supplementation should be more individualized, based on factors like the serum level of folate and what type of antiseizure medication that is being used,” said Dr. Vegrim.
 

Practice changing?

Weighing in on the study, Elizabeth E. Gerard, MD, director of the Women with Epilepsy Program and associate professor of neurology at Northwestern University in Chicago, said, “There are known benefits of folic acid supplementation during pregnancy including a decreased risk of neural tube defects in the general population and improved neurodevelopmental outcomes in children born to mothers with and without epilepsy.”

“However, despite some expert guidelines recommending high-dose folic acid supplementation, there is a lack of certainty surrounding the ‘just right’ dose for patients with epilepsy who may become pregnant,” said Dr. Gerard, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Gerard, a member of the American Epilepsy Society, noted that other epidemiologic studies of folic acid supplementation and cancer have had “contradictory results, thus further research on this association will be needed. Additionally, differences in maternal/fetal folate metabolism and blood levels may be an important factor to study in the future.

“That said, this study definitely should cause us to pause and reevaluate the common practice of high-dose folic acid supplementation for patients with epilepsy who are considering pregnancy,” said Dr. Gerard.

The study was supported by the NordForsk Nordic Program on Health and Welfare. Dr. Vegrim and Dr. Gerard report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid is associated with a greater than twofold increased risk for cancer in children of mothers with epilepsy, new data from a Scandinavian registry of more than 3 million pregnancies suggests.

The increased risk for cancer did not change after considering other factors that could explain the risk, such as use of antiseizure medication (ASM).

There was no increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy who used high-dose folic acid.

The results of this study “should be considered when the risks and benefits of folic acid supplements for women with epilepsy are discussed and before decisions about optimal dose recommendations are made,” the authors write.

“Although we believe that the association between prescription fills for high-dose folic acid and cancer in children born to mothers with epilepsy is robust, it is important to underline that these are the findings of one study only,” first author Håkon Magne Vegrim, MD, with University of Bergen (Norway) told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Women with epilepsy are advised to take high doses of folic acid before and during pregnancy owing to the risk for congenital malformations associated with ASM. Whether high-dose folic acid is associated with increases in the risk for childhood cancer is unknown.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed registry data from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden for 3.3 million children followed to a median age of 7.3 years.

Among the 27,784 children born to mothers with epilepsy, 5,934 (21.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 4.3 mg), with a cancer incidence rate of 42.5 per 100,000 person-years in 18 exposed cancer cases compared with 18.4 per 100,000 person-years in 29 unexposed cancer cases – yielding an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-6.3).

The absolute risk with exposure was 1.5% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.5%) in children of mothers with epilepsy compared with 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.1%) in children of mothers with epilepsy who were not exposed high-dose folic acid.

Prenatal exposure to high-dose folic acid was not associated with an increased risk for cancer in children of mothers without epilepsy.

In children of mothers without epilepsy, 46,646 (1.4%) were exposed to high-dose folic acid (mean dose, 2.9 mg). There were 69 exposed and 4,927 unexposed cancer cases and an aHR for cancer of 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9-1.4) and absolute risk for cancer of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%).

There was no association between any specific ASM and childhood cancer.

“Removing mothers with any prescription fills for carbamazepine and valproate was not associated with the point estimate. Hence, these two ASMs were not important effect modifiers for the cancer association,” the investigators note in their study.

They also note that the most common childhood cancer types in children among mothers with epilepsy who took high-dose folic acid did not differ from the distribution in the general population.

“We need to get more knowledge about the potential mechanisms behind high-dose folic acid and childhood cancer, and it is important to identify the optimal dose to balance risks and benefits – and whether folic acid supplementation should be more individualized, based on factors like the serum level of folate and what type of antiseizure medication that is being used,” said Dr. Vegrim.
 

Practice changing?

Weighing in on the study, Elizabeth E. Gerard, MD, director of the Women with Epilepsy Program and associate professor of neurology at Northwestern University in Chicago, said, “There are known benefits of folic acid supplementation during pregnancy including a decreased risk of neural tube defects in the general population and improved neurodevelopmental outcomes in children born to mothers with and without epilepsy.”

“However, despite some expert guidelines recommending high-dose folic acid supplementation, there is a lack of certainty surrounding the ‘just right’ dose for patients with epilepsy who may become pregnant,” said Dr. Gerard, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Gerard, a member of the American Epilepsy Society, noted that other epidemiologic studies of folic acid supplementation and cancer have had “contradictory results, thus further research on this association will be needed. Additionally, differences in maternal/fetal folate metabolism and blood levels may be an important factor to study in the future.

“That said, this study definitely should cause us to pause and reevaluate the common practice of high-dose folic acid supplementation for patients with epilepsy who are considering pregnancy,” said Dr. Gerard.

The study was supported by the NordForsk Nordic Program on Health and Welfare. Dr. Vegrim and Dr. Gerard report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlights the unique drivers of burnout in academic cardiovascular medicine physicians and proposes system-level and personal interventions to support individual wellness in this setting.

“The future cardiovascular health of Americans relies on a well-trained and experienced physician workforce created by rigorous academic medical training,” the writing group says in Circulation.

“Cardiovascular physicians pursuing careers in academic medicine are critical to continuing this mission, which includes providing clinical care for common and increasingly complex disease, educating and training the next generation of physicians/health care workers, and pursuing scientific discovery and innovation to treat and cure disease,” write Elisa Bradley, Penn State Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors.

Given the multitasking nature of academic medicine, exhaustion and burnout uniquely threaten future and early career academic physicians, they say.

Drivers of burnout in this setting include productivity-driven compensation models that force competition for time between clinical care and academics; the requirement for promotion in systems that have not evolved to consider combined clinical and academic expectations; and distinct expectations based on faculty pathway, such as grant funding and publications.

In addition, at the early career and fellow-in-training level, drivers of burnout also include significant changes in personal and family life, coupled with long hours and high clinical and research demands, as well as financial strain and educational debt.

Many of the drivers of burnout in academic medicine are external and beyond the control of a single individual. Therefore, proposed solutions must be largely at the level of organizations, institutions, and government, the writing group says.

These solutions include appropriate mentorship, goal planning, efficiency in the workplace, time management and time “protection,” and manageable schedules.

Professional satisfaction “should be a shared responsibility between the clinician and the institution. Each must adapt their values to find a middle ground that meets the needs of both, recognizing that health care is both personal and a business,” the writing group says.

“Interventions to support efficiency of practice and a culture of wellness span normalizing and supporting flexible work environments to enhancing clinical support,” they add.

To enhance flexible clinical environments, organizations should consider “float teams” to provide care to bridge gaps when a physician is not available, job sharing and flexible hours, and telemedicine, the writing group says.

At the individual level, academic cardiovascular professionals should build individualized strategies to combat fatigue and to promote wellness, focusing on self-care and healthy habits (adequate sleep, healthy nutrition, exercise, outside interests, meaningful social relationships), they advise.

With help, “young academicians can look forward to a fulfilling and long career in academic cardiovascular medicine,” they conclude.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlights the unique drivers of burnout in academic cardiovascular medicine physicians and proposes system-level and personal interventions to support individual wellness in this setting.

“The future cardiovascular health of Americans relies on a well-trained and experienced physician workforce created by rigorous academic medical training,” the writing group says in Circulation.

“Cardiovascular physicians pursuing careers in academic medicine are critical to continuing this mission, which includes providing clinical care for common and increasingly complex disease, educating and training the next generation of physicians/health care workers, and pursuing scientific discovery and innovation to treat and cure disease,” write Elisa Bradley, Penn State Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors.

Given the multitasking nature of academic medicine, exhaustion and burnout uniquely threaten future and early career academic physicians, they say.

Drivers of burnout in this setting include productivity-driven compensation models that force competition for time between clinical care and academics; the requirement for promotion in systems that have not evolved to consider combined clinical and academic expectations; and distinct expectations based on faculty pathway, such as grant funding and publications.

In addition, at the early career and fellow-in-training level, drivers of burnout also include significant changes in personal and family life, coupled with long hours and high clinical and research demands, as well as financial strain and educational debt.

Many of the drivers of burnout in academic medicine are external and beyond the control of a single individual. Therefore, proposed solutions must be largely at the level of organizations, institutions, and government, the writing group says.

These solutions include appropriate mentorship, goal planning, efficiency in the workplace, time management and time “protection,” and manageable schedules.

Professional satisfaction “should be a shared responsibility between the clinician and the institution. Each must adapt their values to find a middle ground that meets the needs of both, recognizing that health care is both personal and a business,” the writing group says.

“Interventions to support efficiency of practice and a culture of wellness span normalizing and supporting flexible work environments to enhancing clinical support,” they add.

To enhance flexible clinical environments, organizations should consider “float teams” to provide care to bridge gaps when a physician is not available, job sharing and flexible hours, and telemedicine, the writing group says.

At the individual level, academic cardiovascular professionals should build individualized strategies to combat fatigue and to promote wellness, focusing on self-care and healthy habits (adequate sleep, healthy nutrition, exercise, outside interests, meaningful social relationships), they advise.

With help, “young academicians can look forward to a fulfilling and long career in academic cardiovascular medicine,” they conclude.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlights the unique drivers of burnout in academic cardiovascular medicine physicians and proposes system-level and personal interventions to support individual wellness in this setting.

“The future cardiovascular health of Americans relies on a well-trained and experienced physician workforce created by rigorous academic medical training,” the writing group says in Circulation.

“Cardiovascular physicians pursuing careers in academic medicine are critical to continuing this mission, which includes providing clinical care for common and increasingly complex disease, educating and training the next generation of physicians/health care workers, and pursuing scientific discovery and innovation to treat and cure disease,” write Elisa Bradley, Penn State Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors.

Given the multitasking nature of academic medicine, exhaustion and burnout uniquely threaten future and early career academic physicians, they say.

Drivers of burnout in this setting include productivity-driven compensation models that force competition for time between clinical care and academics; the requirement for promotion in systems that have not evolved to consider combined clinical and academic expectations; and distinct expectations based on faculty pathway, such as grant funding and publications.

In addition, at the early career and fellow-in-training level, drivers of burnout also include significant changes in personal and family life, coupled with long hours and high clinical and research demands, as well as financial strain and educational debt.

Many of the drivers of burnout in academic medicine are external and beyond the control of a single individual. Therefore, proposed solutions must be largely at the level of organizations, institutions, and government, the writing group says.

These solutions include appropriate mentorship, goal planning, efficiency in the workplace, time management and time “protection,” and manageable schedules.

Professional satisfaction “should be a shared responsibility between the clinician and the institution. Each must adapt their values to find a middle ground that meets the needs of both, recognizing that health care is both personal and a business,” the writing group says.

“Interventions to support efficiency of practice and a culture of wellness span normalizing and supporting flexible work environments to enhancing clinical support,” they add.

To enhance flexible clinical environments, organizations should consider “float teams” to provide care to bridge gaps when a physician is not available, job sharing and flexible hours, and telemedicine, the writing group says.

At the individual level, academic cardiovascular professionals should build individualized strategies to combat fatigue and to promote wellness, focusing on self-care and healthy habits (adequate sleep, healthy nutrition, exercise, outside interests, meaningful social relationships), they advise.

With help, “young academicians can look forward to a fulfilling and long career in academic cardiovascular medicine,” they conclude.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nightmares in healthy middle-aged and older adults may be an independent risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, particularly in men, new research suggests.

Results from a large cohort study showed that healthy middle-aged adults who had bad dreams at least once a week were four times more likely to experience cognitive decline over the following decade, and older adults were twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia, compared with peers who never had bad dreams.

Frequent nightmares may “identify people who are at high risk of developing dementia in the future, several years or decades before the characteristic memory and thinking problems emerge,” study investigator Abidemi Otaiku, BMBS, University of Birmingham, England, said in an interview.

“This would be the optimum time for doctors to intervene to try and slow down or prevent dementia from developing,” Dr. Otaiku said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine).
 

Distressing dreams

Distressing dreams have been previously associated with faster cognitive decline and increased dementia risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but whether the same holds for individuals from the general population without PD is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Otaiku examined data from three community-based cohorts in the United States. This included 605 middle-aged adults (aged 35-64 years) who were followed for up to 13 years and 2,600 adults aged 79 and older who were followed for up to 7 years. All were considered cognitively normal at baseline.

The prevalence of frequent distressing dreams, defined as occurring “once a week or more,” was higher in the older cohort compared with the middle-aged cohort (6.9% vs. 6.0%, respectively).

This is in line with other research that showed distressing dreams remain relatively stable throughout early adulthood and then progressively increase in prevalence from middle to older adulthood. 

After adjustment for all covariates, a higher frequency of distressing dreams was linearly and statistically significantly associated with a higher risk for cognitive decline in middle-aged adults (P = .016) and a higher risk for dementia in older adults (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, compared with middle-aged adults who never had bad dreams, those who reported having one or more bad dreams weekly had a fourfold risk for cognitive decline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-14.85).

Older adults who had one or more bad dreams weekly had a greater than twofold increased risk for developing dementia (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.35-3.62).
 

Early days

In sex-stratified analyses, distressing dreams were strongly and statistically significantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in men, but were only weakly and nonsignificantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in women.

Dr. Otaiku said he suspects some individuals in the preclinical phase of dementia have “subtle neurodegeneration occurring over time in the right frontal lobe: the area of the brain that helps to downregulate negative emotions whilst we are awake, and also whilst we are dreaming.”

This could result in “depression and anxiety in the day, and nightmares and bad dreams during the night,” he said.

It is possible that treatment for frequent nightmares may help to slow cognitive decline and delay or prevent dementia, Dr. Otaiku added.

He noted that prazosin is used to treat nightmares and has been shown to prevent memory decline and reduce amyloid B generation in preclinical studies of Alzheimer’s disease.

“This is an exciting prospect [but] it is still early days and we will need research to see whether treating nightmares might help to reduce dementia risk down the line,” Dr. Otaiku said.
 

Credible research

In an interview regarding these findings, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said: “This is credible research consistent with the idea that sleep disturbances may be a risk factor or warning sign of cognitive decline.”

She added that “what’s novel here” is the researchers examined distressing dreams – not more physical sleep disturbances and disorders such as insomnia or apnea.

“However, nightmares can disturb sleep in the same way these disorders do by waking people up in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Carrillo, who was not involved with the study.

“Previous research has pointed to nightmares being indicative of potential changes in the brain that can precede other dementias like Parkinson’s disease. More research is needed to tease out what exactly is happening in the brain during nightmares that may be contributing to this increased risk,” she said.

Dr. Carrillo noted that “getting good sleep” is important for overall health, which includes brain health.

“The good news is there are treatments – both drug and nondrug – that can help address sleep disturbances,” she added.

This study received no external funding. Dr. Otaiku and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nightmares in healthy middle-aged and older adults may be an independent risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, particularly in men, new research suggests.

Results from a large cohort study showed that healthy middle-aged adults who had bad dreams at least once a week were four times more likely to experience cognitive decline over the following decade, and older adults were twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia, compared with peers who never had bad dreams.

Frequent nightmares may “identify people who are at high risk of developing dementia in the future, several years or decades before the characteristic memory and thinking problems emerge,” study investigator Abidemi Otaiku, BMBS, University of Birmingham, England, said in an interview.

“This would be the optimum time for doctors to intervene to try and slow down or prevent dementia from developing,” Dr. Otaiku said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine).
 

Distressing dreams

Distressing dreams have been previously associated with faster cognitive decline and increased dementia risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but whether the same holds for individuals from the general population without PD is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Otaiku examined data from three community-based cohorts in the United States. This included 605 middle-aged adults (aged 35-64 years) who were followed for up to 13 years and 2,600 adults aged 79 and older who were followed for up to 7 years. All were considered cognitively normal at baseline.

The prevalence of frequent distressing dreams, defined as occurring “once a week or more,” was higher in the older cohort compared with the middle-aged cohort (6.9% vs. 6.0%, respectively).

This is in line with other research that showed distressing dreams remain relatively stable throughout early adulthood and then progressively increase in prevalence from middle to older adulthood. 

After adjustment for all covariates, a higher frequency of distressing dreams was linearly and statistically significantly associated with a higher risk for cognitive decline in middle-aged adults (P = .016) and a higher risk for dementia in older adults (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, compared with middle-aged adults who never had bad dreams, those who reported having one or more bad dreams weekly had a fourfold risk for cognitive decline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-14.85).

Older adults who had one or more bad dreams weekly had a greater than twofold increased risk for developing dementia (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.35-3.62).
 

Early days

In sex-stratified analyses, distressing dreams were strongly and statistically significantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in men, but were only weakly and nonsignificantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in women.

Dr. Otaiku said he suspects some individuals in the preclinical phase of dementia have “subtle neurodegeneration occurring over time in the right frontal lobe: the area of the brain that helps to downregulate negative emotions whilst we are awake, and also whilst we are dreaming.”

This could result in “depression and anxiety in the day, and nightmares and bad dreams during the night,” he said.

It is possible that treatment for frequent nightmares may help to slow cognitive decline and delay or prevent dementia, Dr. Otaiku added.

He noted that prazosin is used to treat nightmares and has been shown to prevent memory decline and reduce amyloid B generation in preclinical studies of Alzheimer’s disease.

“This is an exciting prospect [but] it is still early days and we will need research to see whether treating nightmares might help to reduce dementia risk down the line,” Dr. Otaiku said.
 

Credible research

In an interview regarding these findings, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said: “This is credible research consistent with the idea that sleep disturbances may be a risk factor or warning sign of cognitive decline.”

She added that “what’s novel here” is the researchers examined distressing dreams – not more physical sleep disturbances and disorders such as insomnia or apnea.

“However, nightmares can disturb sleep in the same way these disorders do by waking people up in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Carrillo, who was not involved with the study.

“Previous research has pointed to nightmares being indicative of potential changes in the brain that can precede other dementias like Parkinson’s disease. More research is needed to tease out what exactly is happening in the brain during nightmares that may be contributing to this increased risk,” she said.

Dr. Carrillo noted that “getting good sleep” is important for overall health, which includes brain health.

“The good news is there are treatments – both drug and nondrug – that can help address sleep disturbances,” she added.

This study received no external funding. Dr. Otaiku and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nightmares in healthy middle-aged and older adults may be an independent risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, particularly in men, new research suggests.

Results from a large cohort study showed that healthy middle-aged adults who had bad dreams at least once a week were four times more likely to experience cognitive decline over the following decade, and older adults were twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia, compared with peers who never had bad dreams.

Frequent nightmares may “identify people who are at high risk of developing dementia in the future, several years or decades before the characteristic memory and thinking problems emerge,” study investigator Abidemi Otaiku, BMBS, University of Birmingham, England, said in an interview.

“This would be the optimum time for doctors to intervene to try and slow down or prevent dementia from developing,” Dr. Otaiku said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine).
 

Distressing dreams

Distressing dreams have been previously associated with faster cognitive decline and increased dementia risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but whether the same holds for individuals from the general population without PD is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Otaiku examined data from three community-based cohorts in the United States. This included 605 middle-aged adults (aged 35-64 years) who were followed for up to 13 years and 2,600 adults aged 79 and older who were followed for up to 7 years. All were considered cognitively normal at baseline.

The prevalence of frequent distressing dreams, defined as occurring “once a week or more,” was higher in the older cohort compared with the middle-aged cohort (6.9% vs. 6.0%, respectively).

This is in line with other research that showed distressing dreams remain relatively stable throughout early adulthood and then progressively increase in prevalence from middle to older adulthood. 

After adjustment for all covariates, a higher frequency of distressing dreams was linearly and statistically significantly associated with a higher risk for cognitive decline in middle-aged adults (P = .016) and a higher risk for dementia in older adults (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, compared with middle-aged adults who never had bad dreams, those who reported having one or more bad dreams weekly had a fourfold risk for cognitive decline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-14.85).

Older adults who had one or more bad dreams weekly had a greater than twofold increased risk for developing dementia (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.35-3.62).
 

Early days

In sex-stratified analyses, distressing dreams were strongly and statistically significantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in men, but were only weakly and nonsignificantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in women.

Dr. Otaiku said he suspects some individuals in the preclinical phase of dementia have “subtle neurodegeneration occurring over time in the right frontal lobe: the area of the brain that helps to downregulate negative emotions whilst we are awake, and also whilst we are dreaming.”

This could result in “depression and anxiety in the day, and nightmares and bad dreams during the night,” he said.

It is possible that treatment for frequent nightmares may help to slow cognitive decline and delay or prevent dementia, Dr. Otaiku added.

He noted that prazosin is used to treat nightmares and has been shown to prevent memory decline and reduce amyloid B generation in preclinical studies of Alzheimer’s disease.

“This is an exciting prospect [but] it is still early days and we will need research to see whether treating nightmares might help to reduce dementia risk down the line,” Dr. Otaiku said.
 

Credible research

In an interview regarding these findings, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said: “This is credible research consistent with the idea that sleep disturbances may be a risk factor or warning sign of cognitive decline.”

She added that “what’s novel here” is the researchers examined distressing dreams – not more physical sleep disturbances and disorders such as insomnia or apnea.

“However, nightmares can disturb sleep in the same way these disorders do by waking people up in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Carrillo, who was not involved with the study.

“Previous research has pointed to nightmares being indicative of potential changes in the brain that can precede other dementias like Parkinson’s disease. More research is needed to tease out what exactly is happening in the brain during nightmares that may be contributing to this increased risk,” she said.

Dr. Carrillo noted that “getting good sleep” is important for overall health, which includes brain health.

“The good news is there are treatments – both drug and nondrug – that can help address sleep disturbances,” she added.

This study received no external funding. Dr. Otaiku and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.