User login
Best antioxidants to prevent age-related dementia identified?
Investigators found that individuals with the highest serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin at baseline were less likely to have dementia decades later than were their peers with lower levels of these antioxidants.
Lutein and zeaxanthin are found in green leafy vegetables such as kale, spinach, broccoli, and peas. Beta-cryptoxanthin is found in fruits such as oranges, papaya, tangerines, and persimmons.
“Antioxidants may help protect the brain from oxidative stress, which can cause cell damage,” first author May A. Beydoun, PhD, with the National Institute on Aging (NIA), said in a news release.
“This is the first nationally representative study to analyze blood levels of antioxidants in relation to dementia risk,” NIA scientific director Luigi Ferrucci, MD, said in an interview.
“Blood test results may be more representative of the actual antioxidant level than a person’s report of what kind of foods they regularly consume,” Dr. Ferrucci added.
The study was published online in Neurology.
Reduced dementia risk
The researchers tested associations and interactions of serum vitamins A, C and E, and total and individual serum carotenoids and interactions with incident Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and all-cause dementia.
They analyzed data from 7,283 participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) who were at least 45 years old at baseline and followed for an average of 16-17 years.
They found serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin were associated with reduced risk of all-cause dementia among people aged 65 and older in models adjusted for lifestyle.
For lutein + zeaxanthin, every standard deviation (SD) increase (roughly 15.4 µmol/liter) was associated with a 7% decrease in risk for dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.99, P = .037). This association was attenuated somewhat after adjustment for socioeconomic status.
Serum levels of beta-cryptoxanthin showed a “strong” inverse relationship with all-cause dementia in age- and sex-adjusted models.
For beta-cryptoxanthin, every SD increase (roughly 8.6 µmol/liter) was associated with a 14% reduced risk for dementia in people aged 45 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P < .001) and 65 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P = .001).
This relationship remained strong in models adjusted for sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors but attenuated in subsequent models.
No associations were found for lycopene, alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, or vitamins A, C, or E in the fully adjusted models.
Antagonistic interactions were observed for vitamin A and alpha-carotene, vitamin A and beta-carotene, vitamin E and lycopene, and lycopene and beta-carotene, suggesting putative protective effects of one antioxidant at lower levels of the other, the researchers noted.
“This analysis of an observational study found that the most important carotenoids in potentially protecting the brain may be lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to prove causality,” said Dr. Ferrucci.
“Experts do not yet know the daily level of antioxidant intake to promote healthy aging of the brain. More research is needed to establish the necessary level of antioxidant intake – through the diet and/or supplements – to promote brain health and healthy aging,” he added.
An important step forward
In an accompanying editorial, Babak Hooshmand, MD, PhD, and Miia Kivipelto, MD, PhD, with Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, noted that while nutrition and dietary components are “potential targets” for dementia risk reduction, observational studies to date have reported “inconsistent findings.”
This study is “an important step towards exploring the complex relationship between antioxidants and dementia because it accounts for factors that could possibly influence the associations and considers interactions between different components,” they wrote.
The findings are “challenging,” they added, because they may lead to the hypothesis that inhibition of oxidative damage by antioxidants might have beneficial effects on preventing dementia.
However, clinical trials of antioxidant supplementation have been mainly “disappointing” and a recent Cochrane review found a lack of evidence for supplement use to preserve cognitive function or prevent dementia, Dr. Hooshmand and Dr. Kivipelto noted.
They added that the study contributes to the belief that antioxidants don’t act independently of each other or other factors, including socioeconomic status and lifestyle, in the mediation of dementia risk.
“A careful examination of the evidence is required to learn how antioxidants influence the complex pathology of dementia, because it appears to be more to it than meets the eye,”they concluded.
The research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Beydoun, Dr. Ferrucci, and Dr. Hooshmand report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kivipelto has supported advisory boards for Combinostics, Roche, and Biogen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found that individuals with the highest serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin at baseline were less likely to have dementia decades later than were their peers with lower levels of these antioxidants.
Lutein and zeaxanthin are found in green leafy vegetables such as kale, spinach, broccoli, and peas. Beta-cryptoxanthin is found in fruits such as oranges, papaya, tangerines, and persimmons.
“Antioxidants may help protect the brain from oxidative stress, which can cause cell damage,” first author May A. Beydoun, PhD, with the National Institute on Aging (NIA), said in a news release.
“This is the first nationally representative study to analyze blood levels of antioxidants in relation to dementia risk,” NIA scientific director Luigi Ferrucci, MD, said in an interview.
“Blood test results may be more representative of the actual antioxidant level than a person’s report of what kind of foods they regularly consume,” Dr. Ferrucci added.
The study was published online in Neurology.
Reduced dementia risk
The researchers tested associations and interactions of serum vitamins A, C and E, and total and individual serum carotenoids and interactions with incident Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and all-cause dementia.
They analyzed data from 7,283 participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) who were at least 45 years old at baseline and followed for an average of 16-17 years.
They found serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin were associated with reduced risk of all-cause dementia among people aged 65 and older in models adjusted for lifestyle.
For lutein + zeaxanthin, every standard deviation (SD) increase (roughly 15.4 µmol/liter) was associated with a 7% decrease in risk for dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.99, P = .037). This association was attenuated somewhat after adjustment for socioeconomic status.
Serum levels of beta-cryptoxanthin showed a “strong” inverse relationship with all-cause dementia in age- and sex-adjusted models.
For beta-cryptoxanthin, every SD increase (roughly 8.6 µmol/liter) was associated with a 14% reduced risk for dementia in people aged 45 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P < .001) and 65 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P = .001).
This relationship remained strong in models adjusted for sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors but attenuated in subsequent models.
No associations were found for lycopene, alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, or vitamins A, C, or E in the fully adjusted models.
Antagonistic interactions were observed for vitamin A and alpha-carotene, vitamin A and beta-carotene, vitamin E and lycopene, and lycopene and beta-carotene, suggesting putative protective effects of one antioxidant at lower levels of the other, the researchers noted.
“This analysis of an observational study found that the most important carotenoids in potentially protecting the brain may be lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to prove causality,” said Dr. Ferrucci.
“Experts do not yet know the daily level of antioxidant intake to promote healthy aging of the brain. More research is needed to establish the necessary level of antioxidant intake – through the diet and/or supplements – to promote brain health and healthy aging,” he added.
An important step forward
In an accompanying editorial, Babak Hooshmand, MD, PhD, and Miia Kivipelto, MD, PhD, with Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, noted that while nutrition and dietary components are “potential targets” for dementia risk reduction, observational studies to date have reported “inconsistent findings.”
This study is “an important step towards exploring the complex relationship between antioxidants and dementia because it accounts for factors that could possibly influence the associations and considers interactions between different components,” they wrote.
The findings are “challenging,” they added, because they may lead to the hypothesis that inhibition of oxidative damage by antioxidants might have beneficial effects on preventing dementia.
However, clinical trials of antioxidant supplementation have been mainly “disappointing” and a recent Cochrane review found a lack of evidence for supplement use to preserve cognitive function or prevent dementia, Dr. Hooshmand and Dr. Kivipelto noted.
They added that the study contributes to the belief that antioxidants don’t act independently of each other or other factors, including socioeconomic status and lifestyle, in the mediation of dementia risk.
“A careful examination of the evidence is required to learn how antioxidants influence the complex pathology of dementia, because it appears to be more to it than meets the eye,”they concluded.
The research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Beydoun, Dr. Ferrucci, and Dr. Hooshmand report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kivipelto has supported advisory boards for Combinostics, Roche, and Biogen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found that individuals with the highest serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin at baseline were less likely to have dementia decades later than were their peers with lower levels of these antioxidants.
Lutein and zeaxanthin are found in green leafy vegetables such as kale, spinach, broccoli, and peas. Beta-cryptoxanthin is found in fruits such as oranges, papaya, tangerines, and persimmons.
“Antioxidants may help protect the brain from oxidative stress, which can cause cell damage,” first author May A. Beydoun, PhD, with the National Institute on Aging (NIA), said in a news release.
“This is the first nationally representative study to analyze blood levels of antioxidants in relation to dementia risk,” NIA scientific director Luigi Ferrucci, MD, said in an interview.
“Blood test results may be more representative of the actual antioxidant level than a person’s report of what kind of foods they regularly consume,” Dr. Ferrucci added.
The study was published online in Neurology.
Reduced dementia risk
The researchers tested associations and interactions of serum vitamins A, C and E, and total and individual serum carotenoids and interactions with incident Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and all-cause dementia.
They analyzed data from 7,283 participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) who were at least 45 years old at baseline and followed for an average of 16-17 years.
They found serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin were associated with reduced risk of all-cause dementia among people aged 65 and older in models adjusted for lifestyle.
For lutein + zeaxanthin, every standard deviation (SD) increase (roughly 15.4 µmol/liter) was associated with a 7% decrease in risk for dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.99, P = .037). This association was attenuated somewhat after adjustment for socioeconomic status.
Serum levels of beta-cryptoxanthin showed a “strong” inverse relationship with all-cause dementia in age- and sex-adjusted models.
For beta-cryptoxanthin, every SD increase (roughly 8.6 µmol/liter) was associated with a 14% reduced risk for dementia in people aged 45 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P < .001) and 65 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P = .001).
This relationship remained strong in models adjusted for sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors but attenuated in subsequent models.
No associations were found for lycopene, alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, or vitamins A, C, or E in the fully adjusted models.
Antagonistic interactions were observed for vitamin A and alpha-carotene, vitamin A and beta-carotene, vitamin E and lycopene, and lycopene and beta-carotene, suggesting putative protective effects of one antioxidant at lower levels of the other, the researchers noted.
“This analysis of an observational study found that the most important carotenoids in potentially protecting the brain may be lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to prove causality,” said Dr. Ferrucci.
“Experts do not yet know the daily level of antioxidant intake to promote healthy aging of the brain. More research is needed to establish the necessary level of antioxidant intake – through the diet and/or supplements – to promote brain health and healthy aging,” he added.
An important step forward
In an accompanying editorial, Babak Hooshmand, MD, PhD, and Miia Kivipelto, MD, PhD, with Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, noted that while nutrition and dietary components are “potential targets” for dementia risk reduction, observational studies to date have reported “inconsistent findings.”
This study is “an important step towards exploring the complex relationship between antioxidants and dementia because it accounts for factors that could possibly influence the associations and considers interactions between different components,” they wrote.
The findings are “challenging,” they added, because they may lead to the hypothesis that inhibition of oxidative damage by antioxidants might have beneficial effects on preventing dementia.
However, clinical trials of antioxidant supplementation have been mainly “disappointing” and a recent Cochrane review found a lack of evidence for supplement use to preserve cognitive function or prevent dementia, Dr. Hooshmand and Dr. Kivipelto noted.
They added that the study contributes to the belief that antioxidants don’t act independently of each other or other factors, including socioeconomic status and lifestyle, in the mediation of dementia risk.
“A careful examination of the evidence is required to learn how antioxidants influence the complex pathology of dementia, because it appears to be more to it than meets the eye,”they concluded.
The research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Beydoun, Dr. Ferrucci, and Dr. Hooshmand report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kivipelto has supported advisory boards for Combinostics, Roche, and Biogen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Depression biomarkers: Which ones matter most?
Multiple biomarkers of depression involved in several brain circuits are altered in patients with unipolar depression.
because they suggest neuroimmunological alterations, disturbances in the blood-brain-barrier, hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and impaired neuroplasticity as factors in depression pathophysiology.
However, said study investigator Michael E. Benros, MD, PhD, professor and head of research at Mental Health Centre Copenhagen and University of Copenhagen, this is on a group level. “So in order to be relevant in a clinical context, the results need to be validated by further high-quality studies identifying subgroups with different biological underpinnings,” he told this news organization.
Identification of potential subgroups of depression with different biomarkers might help explain the diverse symptomatology and variability in treatment response observed in patients with depression, he noted.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Multiple pathways to depression
The systematic review and meta-analysis included 97 studies investigating 165 CSF biomarkers.
Of the 42 biomarkers investigated in at least two studies, patients with unipolar depression had higher CSF levels of interleukin 6, a marker of chronic inflammation; total protein, which signals blood-brain barrier dysfunction and increased permeability; and cortisol, which is linked to psychological stress, compared with healthy controls.
Depression was also associated with:
- Lower CSF levels of homovanillic acid, the major terminal metabolite of dopamine.
- Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the CNS thought to play a vital role in the control of stress and depression.
- Somatostatin, a neuropeptide often coexpressed with GABA.
- Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein involved in neurogenesis, synaptic plasticity, and neurotransmission.
- Amyloid-β 40, implicated in Alzheimer’s disease.
- Transthyretin, involved in transport of thyroxine across the blood-brain barrier.
Collectively, the findings point toward a “dysregulated dopaminergic system, a compromised inhibitory system, HPA axis hyperactivity, increased neuroinflammation and blood-brain barrier permeability, and impaired neuroplasticity as important factors in depression pathophysiology,” the investigators wrote.
“It is notable that we did not find significant difference in the metabolite levels of serotonin and noradrenalin, which are the most targeted neurotransmitters in modern antidepressant treatment,” said Dr. Benros.
However, this could be explained by substantial heterogeneity between studies and the fact that quantification of total CSF biomarker concentrations does not reflect local alteration within the brain, he explained.
Many of the studies had small cohorts and most quantified only a few biomarkers, making it hard to examine potential interactions between biomarkers or identify specific phenotypes of depression.
“Novel high-quality studies including larger cohorts with an integrative approach and extensive numbers of biomarkers are needed to validate these potential biomarkers of depression and set the stage for the development of more effective and precise treatments,” the researchers noted.
Which ones hold water?
Reached for comment, Dean MacKinnon, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that this analysis “extracts the vast amount of knowledge” gained from different studies on biomarkers in the CSF for depression.
“They were able to identify 97 papers that have enough information in them that they could sort of lump them together and see which ones still hold water. It’s always useful to be able to look at patterns in the research and see if you can find some consistent trends,” he told this news organization.
Dr. MacKinnon, who was not part of the research team, also noted that “nonreplicability” is a problem in psychiatry and psychology research, “so being able to show that at least some studies were sufficiently well done, to get a good result, and that they could be replicated in at least one other good study is useful information.”
When it comes to depression, Dr. MacKinnon said, “We just don’t know enough to really pin down a physiologic pathway to explain it. The fact that some people seem to have high cortisol and some people seem to have high permeability of blood-brain barrier, and others have abnormalities in dopamine, is interesting and suggests that depression is likely not a unitary disease with a single cause.”
He cautioned, however, that the findings don’t have immediate clinical implications for individual patients with depression.
“Theoretically, down the road, if you extrapolate from what they found, and if it’s truly the case that this research maps to something that could suggest a different clinical approach, you might be able to determine whether one patient might respond better to an SSRI or an SNRI or something like that,” Dr. MacKinnon said.
Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. MacKinnon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Multiple biomarkers of depression involved in several brain circuits are altered in patients with unipolar depression.
because they suggest neuroimmunological alterations, disturbances in the blood-brain-barrier, hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and impaired neuroplasticity as factors in depression pathophysiology.
However, said study investigator Michael E. Benros, MD, PhD, professor and head of research at Mental Health Centre Copenhagen and University of Copenhagen, this is on a group level. “So in order to be relevant in a clinical context, the results need to be validated by further high-quality studies identifying subgroups with different biological underpinnings,” he told this news organization.
Identification of potential subgroups of depression with different biomarkers might help explain the diverse symptomatology and variability in treatment response observed in patients with depression, he noted.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Multiple pathways to depression
The systematic review and meta-analysis included 97 studies investigating 165 CSF biomarkers.
Of the 42 biomarkers investigated in at least two studies, patients with unipolar depression had higher CSF levels of interleukin 6, a marker of chronic inflammation; total protein, which signals blood-brain barrier dysfunction and increased permeability; and cortisol, which is linked to psychological stress, compared with healthy controls.
Depression was also associated with:
- Lower CSF levels of homovanillic acid, the major terminal metabolite of dopamine.
- Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the CNS thought to play a vital role in the control of stress and depression.
- Somatostatin, a neuropeptide often coexpressed with GABA.
- Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein involved in neurogenesis, synaptic plasticity, and neurotransmission.
- Amyloid-β 40, implicated in Alzheimer’s disease.
- Transthyretin, involved in transport of thyroxine across the blood-brain barrier.
Collectively, the findings point toward a “dysregulated dopaminergic system, a compromised inhibitory system, HPA axis hyperactivity, increased neuroinflammation and blood-brain barrier permeability, and impaired neuroplasticity as important factors in depression pathophysiology,” the investigators wrote.
“It is notable that we did not find significant difference in the metabolite levels of serotonin and noradrenalin, which are the most targeted neurotransmitters in modern antidepressant treatment,” said Dr. Benros.
However, this could be explained by substantial heterogeneity between studies and the fact that quantification of total CSF biomarker concentrations does not reflect local alteration within the brain, he explained.
Many of the studies had small cohorts and most quantified only a few biomarkers, making it hard to examine potential interactions between biomarkers or identify specific phenotypes of depression.
“Novel high-quality studies including larger cohorts with an integrative approach and extensive numbers of biomarkers are needed to validate these potential biomarkers of depression and set the stage for the development of more effective and precise treatments,” the researchers noted.
Which ones hold water?
Reached for comment, Dean MacKinnon, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that this analysis “extracts the vast amount of knowledge” gained from different studies on biomarkers in the CSF for depression.
“They were able to identify 97 papers that have enough information in them that they could sort of lump them together and see which ones still hold water. It’s always useful to be able to look at patterns in the research and see if you can find some consistent trends,” he told this news organization.
Dr. MacKinnon, who was not part of the research team, also noted that “nonreplicability” is a problem in psychiatry and psychology research, “so being able to show that at least some studies were sufficiently well done, to get a good result, and that they could be replicated in at least one other good study is useful information.”
When it comes to depression, Dr. MacKinnon said, “We just don’t know enough to really pin down a physiologic pathway to explain it. The fact that some people seem to have high cortisol and some people seem to have high permeability of blood-brain barrier, and others have abnormalities in dopamine, is interesting and suggests that depression is likely not a unitary disease with a single cause.”
He cautioned, however, that the findings don’t have immediate clinical implications for individual patients with depression.
“Theoretically, down the road, if you extrapolate from what they found, and if it’s truly the case that this research maps to something that could suggest a different clinical approach, you might be able to determine whether one patient might respond better to an SSRI or an SNRI or something like that,” Dr. MacKinnon said.
Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. MacKinnon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Multiple biomarkers of depression involved in several brain circuits are altered in patients with unipolar depression.
because they suggest neuroimmunological alterations, disturbances in the blood-brain-barrier, hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and impaired neuroplasticity as factors in depression pathophysiology.
However, said study investigator Michael E. Benros, MD, PhD, professor and head of research at Mental Health Centre Copenhagen and University of Copenhagen, this is on a group level. “So in order to be relevant in a clinical context, the results need to be validated by further high-quality studies identifying subgroups with different biological underpinnings,” he told this news organization.
Identification of potential subgroups of depression with different biomarkers might help explain the diverse symptomatology and variability in treatment response observed in patients with depression, he noted.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Multiple pathways to depression
The systematic review and meta-analysis included 97 studies investigating 165 CSF biomarkers.
Of the 42 biomarkers investigated in at least two studies, patients with unipolar depression had higher CSF levels of interleukin 6, a marker of chronic inflammation; total protein, which signals blood-brain barrier dysfunction and increased permeability; and cortisol, which is linked to psychological stress, compared with healthy controls.
Depression was also associated with:
- Lower CSF levels of homovanillic acid, the major terminal metabolite of dopamine.
- Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the CNS thought to play a vital role in the control of stress and depression.
- Somatostatin, a neuropeptide often coexpressed with GABA.
- Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein involved in neurogenesis, synaptic plasticity, and neurotransmission.
- Amyloid-β 40, implicated in Alzheimer’s disease.
- Transthyretin, involved in transport of thyroxine across the blood-brain barrier.
Collectively, the findings point toward a “dysregulated dopaminergic system, a compromised inhibitory system, HPA axis hyperactivity, increased neuroinflammation and blood-brain barrier permeability, and impaired neuroplasticity as important factors in depression pathophysiology,” the investigators wrote.
“It is notable that we did not find significant difference in the metabolite levels of serotonin and noradrenalin, which are the most targeted neurotransmitters in modern antidepressant treatment,” said Dr. Benros.
However, this could be explained by substantial heterogeneity between studies and the fact that quantification of total CSF biomarker concentrations does not reflect local alteration within the brain, he explained.
Many of the studies had small cohorts and most quantified only a few biomarkers, making it hard to examine potential interactions between biomarkers or identify specific phenotypes of depression.
“Novel high-quality studies including larger cohorts with an integrative approach and extensive numbers of biomarkers are needed to validate these potential biomarkers of depression and set the stage for the development of more effective and precise treatments,” the researchers noted.
Which ones hold water?
Reached for comment, Dean MacKinnon, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that this analysis “extracts the vast amount of knowledge” gained from different studies on biomarkers in the CSF for depression.
“They were able to identify 97 papers that have enough information in them that they could sort of lump them together and see which ones still hold water. It’s always useful to be able to look at patterns in the research and see if you can find some consistent trends,” he told this news organization.
Dr. MacKinnon, who was not part of the research team, also noted that “nonreplicability” is a problem in psychiatry and psychology research, “so being able to show that at least some studies were sufficiently well done, to get a good result, and that they could be replicated in at least one other good study is useful information.”
When it comes to depression, Dr. MacKinnon said, “We just don’t know enough to really pin down a physiologic pathway to explain it. The fact that some people seem to have high cortisol and some people seem to have high permeability of blood-brain barrier, and others have abnormalities in dopamine, is interesting and suggests that depression is likely not a unitary disease with a single cause.”
He cautioned, however, that the findings don’t have immediate clinical implications for individual patients with depression.
“Theoretically, down the road, if you extrapolate from what they found, and if it’s truly the case that this research maps to something that could suggest a different clinical approach, you might be able to determine whether one patient might respond better to an SSRI or an SNRI or something like that,” Dr. MacKinnon said.
Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. MacKinnon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY
‘Forever chemicals’ linked to liver damage
(NAFLD), say the authors of a comprehensive evidence review.
They found “consistent” evidence for PFAS hepatotoxicity from rodent studies. In addition, exposure to PFAS was found to be associated with markers of liver function in observational studies in people.
The review, published online in Environmental Health Perspectives, may be the first systematic analysis of PFAS exposure and liver damage.
Possible contributor to growing NAFLD epidemic
In their analysis, the authors included 85 rodent studies and 24 epidemiologic studies, primarily involving people from the United States and largely focusing on four “legacy” PFAS: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS).
Meta-analyses of human studies found that higher levels of alanine aminotransferase were significantly associated with exposure to three of the older chemicals – PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA.
The “positive” and “convincing” associations between exposure to these synthetic chemicals and higher ALT levels suggest that exposure may contribute to the growing NAFLD epidemic, the researchers write.
Exposure to one of the chemicals, PFOA, was also associated with higher aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels in people.
In rodents, exposure to these synthetic chemicals consistently resulted in higher ALT levels and steatosis.
“The mechanism is not well understood yet, but there are a few proposed theories,” first author Elizabeth Costello, MPH, PhD student, department of population and public health sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“PFAS are similar to fatty acids in chemical structure, so it’s possible that they activate some of the same receptors or otherwise interfere with fat metabolism. This might lead to inflammation or fat accumulation in the liver,” Ms. Costello explained.
People widely exposed
PFAS are ubiquitous in the environment. They have been detected in the blood of most people and have been linked to a variety of health concerns. Possible sources of PFAS exposure run the gamut from nonstick cookware, food wrappers, and waterproof fabrics to cosmetics and even drinking water.
“We are exposed to PFAS in so many ways – through water, food, and products we use. It can be very difficult for individuals to control their own exposure,” Ms. Costello commented.
“At this point, it’s important to look for ways to remove PFAS from the environment and phase them out of our products and carefully consider the safety of any replacement chemicals,” she said.
Although most of the research to date has been limited to the four older PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS), there are thousands of different PFAS chemicals.
“We don’t know very much about the effects of exposure to multiple PFAS at the same time or how newer replacement PFAS might affect liver disease or other health conditions,” Ms. Costello said.
Reached for comment, Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, with Northwestern University, Chicago, said this analysis is “very interesting,” but she is also “left wondering how we could do anything since it seems from my reading that these chemicals are ubiquitous and used regularly in the environment.”
Dr. VanWagner, who was not involved in the study, said the major limitation is the small number of human studies and the high heterogeneity between studies, “meaning it is hard to come to a firm conclusion about whether what has been observed in the animal studies does truly apply to humans.
“Overall, this study provides important proof of concept for future work to look more specifically at PFAS exposure, and more specific markers of fatty liver disease and liver damage, like liver biopsy, are needed in humans,” Dr. VanWagner said.
“If data accumulate showing that these chemicals do in fact contribute to fatty liver and worsening inflammation or liver damage as a result of exposure, then public health interventions to remove or reduce use of these chemicals could have wide-ranging public health effects,” Dr. VanWagner added.
Further research needed
The authors of an invited perspective published with the study say it underscores the “urgent need for further research and for immediate and reasonable public health action.”
“This work firmly puts PFAS exposure on the list of persistent pollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls, that cause hepatotoxicity and whose mechanism is linked to steatosis,” write Alan Ducatman, MD. MSc, with West Virginia University School of Public Health, Morgantown, and Suzanne Fenton, PhD, MS, with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
They say other important questions raised by this review include whether individuals who are overweight or obese and those with diabetes are more susceptible to PFAS hepatoxicity, which “replacement” or emerging PFAS can cause liver damage, and whether high doses cause different kinds of liver toxicity than low doses.
“GenX, a current replacement [chemical] for PFOA, has shown significant hepatotoxicity in several recent experimental studies, suggesting it may not be a safe replacement,” they point out.
“A significant challenge will be deciding which of the multiple metabolic pathways altered by PFAS are most important and predictive for induction of liver damage and for progression of liver disease, so that emerging PFAS may be screened for hepatotoxicity prior to entering the market,” Dr. Ducatman and Dr. Fenton conclude.
Support for this research was provided by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, part of the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Dr. Costello, Dr. VanWagner, Dr. Ducatman, and Dr. Fenton report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(NAFLD), say the authors of a comprehensive evidence review.
They found “consistent” evidence for PFAS hepatotoxicity from rodent studies. In addition, exposure to PFAS was found to be associated with markers of liver function in observational studies in people.
The review, published online in Environmental Health Perspectives, may be the first systematic analysis of PFAS exposure and liver damage.
Possible contributor to growing NAFLD epidemic
In their analysis, the authors included 85 rodent studies and 24 epidemiologic studies, primarily involving people from the United States and largely focusing on four “legacy” PFAS: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS).
Meta-analyses of human studies found that higher levels of alanine aminotransferase were significantly associated with exposure to three of the older chemicals – PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA.
The “positive” and “convincing” associations between exposure to these synthetic chemicals and higher ALT levels suggest that exposure may contribute to the growing NAFLD epidemic, the researchers write.
Exposure to one of the chemicals, PFOA, was also associated with higher aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels in people.
In rodents, exposure to these synthetic chemicals consistently resulted in higher ALT levels and steatosis.
“The mechanism is not well understood yet, but there are a few proposed theories,” first author Elizabeth Costello, MPH, PhD student, department of population and public health sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“PFAS are similar to fatty acids in chemical structure, so it’s possible that they activate some of the same receptors or otherwise interfere with fat metabolism. This might lead to inflammation or fat accumulation in the liver,” Ms. Costello explained.
People widely exposed
PFAS are ubiquitous in the environment. They have been detected in the blood of most people and have been linked to a variety of health concerns. Possible sources of PFAS exposure run the gamut from nonstick cookware, food wrappers, and waterproof fabrics to cosmetics and even drinking water.
“We are exposed to PFAS in so many ways – through water, food, and products we use. It can be very difficult for individuals to control their own exposure,” Ms. Costello commented.
“At this point, it’s important to look for ways to remove PFAS from the environment and phase them out of our products and carefully consider the safety of any replacement chemicals,” she said.
Although most of the research to date has been limited to the four older PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS), there are thousands of different PFAS chemicals.
“We don’t know very much about the effects of exposure to multiple PFAS at the same time or how newer replacement PFAS might affect liver disease or other health conditions,” Ms. Costello said.
Reached for comment, Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, with Northwestern University, Chicago, said this analysis is “very interesting,” but she is also “left wondering how we could do anything since it seems from my reading that these chemicals are ubiquitous and used regularly in the environment.”
Dr. VanWagner, who was not involved in the study, said the major limitation is the small number of human studies and the high heterogeneity between studies, “meaning it is hard to come to a firm conclusion about whether what has been observed in the animal studies does truly apply to humans.
“Overall, this study provides important proof of concept for future work to look more specifically at PFAS exposure, and more specific markers of fatty liver disease and liver damage, like liver biopsy, are needed in humans,” Dr. VanWagner said.
“If data accumulate showing that these chemicals do in fact contribute to fatty liver and worsening inflammation or liver damage as a result of exposure, then public health interventions to remove or reduce use of these chemicals could have wide-ranging public health effects,” Dr. VanWagner added.
Further research needed
The authors of an invited perspective published with the study say it underscores the “urgent need for further research and for immediate and reasonable public health action.”
“This work firmly puts PFAS exposure on the list of persistent pollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls, that cause hepatotoxicity and whose mechanism is linked to steatosis,” write Alan Ducatman, MD. MSc, with West Virginia University School of Public Health, Morgantown, and Suzanne Fenton, PhD, MS, with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
They say other important questions raised by this review include whether individuals who are overweight or obese and those with diabetes are more susceptible to PFAS hepatoxicity, which “replacement” or emerging PFAS can cause liver damage, and whether high doses cause different kinds of liver toxicity than low doses.
“GenX, a current replacement [chemical] for PFOA, has shown significant hepatotoxicity in several recent experimental studies, suggesting it may not be a safe replacement,” they point out.
“A significant challenge will be deciding which of the multiple metabolic pathways altered by PFAS are most important and predictive for induction of liver damage and for progression of liver disease, so that emerging PFAS may be screened for hepatotoxicity prior to entering the market,” Dr. Ducatman and Dr. Fenton conclude.
Support for this research was provided by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, part of the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Dr. Costello, Dr. VanWagner, Dr. Ducatman, and Dr. Fenton report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(NAFLD), say the authors of a comprehensive evidence review.
They found “consistent” evidence for PFAS hepatotoxicity from rodent studies. In addition, exposure to PFAS was found to be associated with markers of liver function in observational studies in people.
The review, published online in Environmental Health Perspectives, may be the first systematic analysis of PFAS exposure and liver damage.
Possible contributor to growing NAFLD epidemic
In their analysis, the authors included 85 rodent studies and 24 epidemiologic studies, primarily involving people from the United States and largely focusing on four “legacy” PFAS: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS).
Meta-analyses of human studies found that higher levels of alanine aminotransferase were significantly associated with exposure to three of the older chemicals – PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA.
The “positive” and “convincing” associations between exposure to these synthetic chemicals and higher ALT levels suggest that exposure may contribute to the growing NAFLD epidemic, the researchers write.
Exposure to one of the chemicals, PFOA, was also associated with higher aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels in people.
In rodents, exposure to these synthetic chemicals consistently resulted in higher ALT levels and steatosis.
“The mechanism is not well understood yet, but there are a few proposed theories,” first author Elizabeth Costello, MPH, PhD student, department of population and public health sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“PFAS are similar to fatty acids in chemical structure, so it’s possible that they activate some of the same receptors or otherwise interfere with fat metabolism. This might lead to inflammation or fat accumulation in the liver,” Ms. Costello explained.
People widely exposed
PFAS are ubiquitous in the environment. They have been detected in the blood of most people and have been linked to a variety of health concerns. Possible sources of PFAS exposure run the gamut from nonstick cookware, food wrappers, and waterproof fabrics to cosmetics and even drinking water.
“We are exposed to PFAS in so many ways – through water, food, and products we use. It can be very difficult for individuals to control their own exposure,” Ms. Costello commented.
“At this point, it’s important to look for ways to remove PFAS from the environment and phase them out of our products and carefully consider the safety of any replacement chemicals,” she said.
Although most of the research to date has been limited to the four older PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS), there are thousands of different PFAS chemicals.
“We don’t know very much about the effects of exposure to multiple PFAS at the same time or how newer replacement PFAS might affect liver disease or other health conditions,” Ms. Costello said.
Reached for comment, Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, with Northwestern University, Chicago, said this analysis is “very interesting,” but she is also “left wondering how we could do anything since it seems from my reading that these chemicals are ubiquitous and used regularly in the environment.”
Dr. VanWagner, who was not involved in the study, said the major limitation is the small number of human studies and the high heterogeneity between studies, “meaning it is hard to come to a firm conclusion about whether what has been observed in the animal studies does truly apply to humans.
“Overall, this study provides important proof of concept for future work to look more specifically at PFAS exposure, and more specific markers of fatty liver disease and liver damage, like liver biopsy, are needed in humans,” Dr. VanWagner said.
“If data accumulate showing that these chemicals do in fact contribute to fatty liver and worsening inflammation or liver damage as a result of exposure, then public health interventions to remove or reduce use of these chemicals could have wide-ranging public health effects,” Dr. VanWagner added.
Further research needed
The authors of an invited perspective published with the study say it underscores the “urgent need for further research and for immediate and reasonable public health action.”
“This work firmly puts PFAS exposure on the list of persistent pollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls, that cause hepatotoxicity and whose mechanism is linked to steatosis,” write Alan Ducatman, MD. MSc, with West Virginia University School of Public Health, Morgantown, and Suzanne Fenton, PhD, MS, with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
They say other important questions raised by this review include whether individuals who are overweight or obese and those with diabetes are more susceptible to PFAS hepatoxicity, which “replacement” or emerging PFAS can cause liver damage, and whether high doses cause different kinds of liver toxicity than low doses.
“GenX, a current replacement [chemical] for PFOA, has shown significant hepatotoxicity in several recent experimental studies, suggesting it may not be a safe replacement,” they point out.
“A significant challenge will be deciding which of the multiple metabolic pathways altered by PFAS are most important and predictive for induction of liver damage and for progression of liver disease, so that emerging PFAS may be screened for hepatotoxicity prior to entering the market,” Dr. Ducatman and Dr. Fenton conclude.
Support for this research was provided by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, part of the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Dr. Costello, Dr. VanWagner, Dr. Ducatman, and Dr. Fenton report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
New data confirm risk of Guillain-Barré with J&J COVID shot
The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.
The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.
“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.
“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Eleven cases
Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.
This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.
The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.
The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.
There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.
In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.
Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.
The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
Novel presentation?
The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.
“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.
“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.
This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.
The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.
“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.
“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Eleven cases
Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.
This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.
The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.
The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.
There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.
In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.
Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.
The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
Novel presentation?
The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.
“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.
“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.
This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.
The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.
“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.
“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Eleven cases
Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.
This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.
The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.
The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.
There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.
In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.
Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.
The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
Novel presentation?
The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.
“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.
“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.
This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
New blood biomarker to detect early dementia?
Investigators found that plasma concentrations of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate and taurine could distinguish adults with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease from cognitively normal adults.
“Our biomarker for early-stage Alzheimer’s disease represents new thinking and is unique from the amyloid-beta and p-tau molecules that are currently being investigated to diagnose AD,” Sandra Banack, PhD, senior scientist, Brain Chemistry Labs, Jackson, Wyoming, told this news organization.
If further studies pan out, Dr. Banack said this biomarker could “easily be transformed into a test to aid clinical evaluations for Alzheimer’s disease.”
The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
New drug target?
The researchers measured concentrations of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate and taurine in blood plasma samples in 25 patients (21 men; mean age, 71) with a clinical diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s based on a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) score of 0.5, suggesting very mild cognitive impairment, and 25 healthy controls (20 men; mean age, 39).
The concentration of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate, normalized by the concentration of taurine, reliably distinguished blood samples of early-stage Alzheimer’s patients from controls in a blinded analysis.
This biomarker “could lead to new understanding of [AD] and lead to new drug candidates,” Dr. Banack told this news organization.
The researchers note that 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate plays an important role in the structure and function of cellular membranes.
Physiologic effects of increased 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate concentrations in the blood are not known. However, in one study, concentrations of this molecule were found to be significantly lower in the temporal cortex, frontal cortex, and hippocampus (40%) in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, compared with controls.
“New biomarkers take time before they can be implemented in the clinic. The next step will be to repeat the experiments using a large sample size of AD patient blood samples,” Dr. Banack told this news organization.
The study team is looking to source a larger sample size of AD blood samples to replicate these findings. They are also examining this biomarker relative to other neurodegenerative diseases.
“If verified with larger sample sizes, the quantification of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate could potentially assist in the diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease when used in conjunction with the patient’s CDR score and other potential AD biomarkers,” Dr. Banack and colleagues say.
Caveats, cautionary notes
Commenting on the findings, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said the study is “interesting, though very small-scale and very preliminary.”
Dr. Edelmayer said one “major limitation” is that participants did not have their Alzheimer’s diagnosis confirmed with “gold standard biomarkers. They have been diagnosed based only on their cognitive and behavioral symptoms.”
She also cautioned that the study population is not representative – either of the general public or people living with Alzheimer’s disease.
For example, 41 out of all 50 samples are from men, “though we know women are disproportionately impacted by Alzheimer’s.”
“There is a mismatch in the age of the study groups,” Dr. Edelmayer noted. The mean age of controls in the study was 39 and the mean age of people with dementia was 71. Race or ethnicity and other demographic information is also unclear from the article.
“There is an urgent need for simple, inexpensive, noninvasive and easily available diagnostic tools for Alzheimer’s, such as a blood test. A simple blood test for Alzheimer’s would be a great advance for individuals with – and at risk for – the disease, families, doctors, and researchers,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
“Bottom line,” Dr. Edelmayer continued, “these results need to be further tested and verified in long-term, large-scale studies with diverse populations that are representative of those living with Alzheimer’s disease.”
This research was supported by the William Stamps Farish Fund and the Josephine P. & John J. Louis Foundation. Brain Chemistry Labs has applied for a patent related to this research. Dr. Edelmayer has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found that plasma concentrations of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate and taurine could distinguish adults with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease from cognitively normal adults.
“Our biomarker for early-stage Alzheimer’s disease represents new thinking and is unique from the amyloid-beta and p-tau molecules that are currently being investigated to diagnose AD,” Sandra Banack, PhD, senior scientist, Brain Chemistry Labs, Jackson, Wyoming, told this news organization.
If further studies pan out, Dr. Banack said this biomarker could “easily be transformed into a test to aid clinical evaluations for Alzheimer’s disease.”
The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
New drug target?
The researchers measured concentrations of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate and taurine in blood plasma samples in 25 patients (21 men; mean age, 71) with a clinical diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s based on a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) score of 0.5, suggesting very mild cognitive impairment, and 25 healthy controls (20 men; mean age, 39).
The concentration of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate, normalized by the concentration of taurine, reliably distinguished blood samples of early-stage Alzheimer’s patients from controls in a blinded analysis.
This biomarker “could lead to new understanding of [AD] and lead to new drug candidates,” Dr. Banack told this news organization.
The researchers note that 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate plays an important role in the structure and function of cellular membranes.
Physiologic effects of increased 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate concentrations in the blood are not known. However, in one study, concentrations of this molecule were found to be significantly lower in the temporal cortex, frontal cortex, and hippocampus (40%) in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, compared with controls.
“New biomarkers take time before they can be implemented in the clinic. The next step will be to repeat the experiments using a large sample size of AD patient blood samples,” Dr. Banack told this news organization.
The study team is looking to source a larger sample size of AD blood samples to replicate these findings. They are also examining this biomarker relative to other neurodegenerative diseases.
“If verified with larger sample sizes, the quantification of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate could potentially assist in the diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease when used in conjunction with the patient’s CDR score and other potential AD biomarkers,” Dr. Banack and colleagues say.
Caveats, cautionary notes
Commenting on the findings, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said the study is “interesting, though very small-scale and very preliminary.”
Dr. Edelmayer said one “major limitation” is that participants did not have their Alzheimer’s diagnosis confirmed with “gold standard biomarkers. They have been diagnosed based only on their cognitive and behavioral symptoms.”
She also cautioned that the study population is not representative – either of the general public or people living with Alzheimer’s disease.
For example, 41 out of all 50 samples are from men, “though we know women are disproportionately impacted by Alzheimer’s.”
“There is a mismatch in the age of the study groups,” Dr. Edelmayer noted. The mean age of controls in the study was 39 and the mean age of people with dementia was 71. Race or ethnicity and other demographic information is also unclear from the article.
“There is an urgent need for simple, inexpensive, noninvasive and easily available diagnostic tools for Alzheimer’s, such as a blood test. A simple blood test for Alzheimer’s would be a great advance for individuals with – and at risk for – the disease, families, doctors, and researchers,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
“Bottom line,” Dr. Edelmayer continued, “these results need to be further tested and verified in long-term, large-scale studies with diverse populations that are representative of those living with Alzheimer’s disease.”
This research was supported by the William Stamps Farish Fund and the Josephine P. & John J. Louis Foundation. Brain Chemistry Labs has applied for a patent related to this research. Dr. Edelmayer has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found that plasma concentrations of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate and taurine could distinguish adults with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease from cognitively normal adults.
“Our biomarker for early-stage Alzheimer’s disease represents new thinking and is unique from the amyloid-beta and p-tau molecules that are currently being investigated to diagnose AD,” Sandra Banack, PhD, senior scientist, Brain Chemistry Labs, Jackson, Wyoming, told this news organization.
If further studies pan out, Dr. Banack said this biomarker could “easily be transformed into a test to aid clinical evaluations for Alzheimer’s disease.”
The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
New drug target?
The researchers measured concentrations of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate and taurine in blood plasma samples in 25 patients (21 men; mean age, 71) with a clinical diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s based on a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) score of 0.5, suggesting very mild cognitive impairment, and 25 healthy controls (20 men; mean age, 39).
The concentration of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate, normalized by the concentration of taurine, reliably distinguished blood samples of early-stage Alzheimer’s patients from controls in a blinded analysis.
This biomarker “could lead to new understanding of [AD] and lead to new drug candidates,” Dr. Banack told this news organization.
The researchers note that 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate plays an important role in the structure and function of cellular membranes.
Physiologic effects of increased 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate concentrations in the blood are not known. However, in one study, concentrations of this molecule were found to be significantly lower in the temporal cortex, frontal cortex, and hippocampus (40%) in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, compared with controls.
“New biomarkers take time before they can be implemented in the clinic. The next step will be to repeat the experiments using a large sample size of AD patient blood samples,” Dr. Banack told this news organization.
The study team is looking to source a larger sample size of AD blood samples to replicate these findings. They are also examining this biomarker relative to other neurodegenerative diseases.
“If verified with larger sample sizes, the quantification of 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate could potentially assist in the diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease when used in conjunction with the patient’s CDR score and other potential AD biomarkers,” Dr. Banack and colleagues say.
Caveats, cautionary notes
Commenting on the findings, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said the study is “interesting, though very small-scale and very preliminary.”
Dr. Edelmayer said one “major limitation” is that participants did not have their Alzheimer’s diagnosis confirmed with “gold standard biomarkers. They have been diagnosed based only on their cognitive and behavioral symptoms.”
She also cautioned that the study population is not representative – either of the general public or people living with Alzheimer’s disease.
For example, 41 out of all 50 samples are from men, “though we know women are disproportionately impacted by Alzheimer’s.”
“There is a mismatch in the age of the study groups,” Dr. Edelmayer noted. The mean age of controls in the study was 39 and the mean age of people with dementia was 71. Race or ethnicity and other demographic information is also unclear from the article.
“There is an urgent need for simple, inexpensive, noninvasive and easily available diagnostic tools for Alzheimer’s, such as a blood test. A simple blood test for Alzheimer’s would be a great advance for individuals with – and at risk for – the disease, families, doctors, and researchers,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
“Bottom line,” Dr. Edelmayer continued, “these results need to be further tested and verified in long-term, large-scale studies with diverse populations that are representative of those living with Alzheimer’s disease.”
This research was supported by the William Stamps Farish Fund and the Josephine P. & John J. Louis Foundation. Brain Chemistry Labs has applied for a patent related to this research. Dr. Edelmayer has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA clears mavacamten (Camzyos) for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved mavacamten (Camzyos, Bristol Myers Squibb) to improve functional capacity and symptoms in adults with symptomatic New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM).
Mavacamten is the first FDA-approved allosteric and reversible inhibitor selective for cardiac myosin that targets the underlying pathophysiology of the genetic disorder. It’s available in 2.5-mg, 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg capsules.
“The approval of Camzyos represents a significant milestone for appropriate symptomatic obstructive HCM patients and their families, who have long awaited a new treatment option for this chronic and progressive disease,” Anjali T. Owens, MD, medical director of the Center for Inherited Cardiac Disease and assistant professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.
‘Revolutionary’ change
The approval of mavacamten was based on data from the pivotal EXPLORER-HCM and EXPLORER-LTE (long-term extension) trial of adults with symptomatic NYHA class II-III oHCM.
In EXPLORER-HCM, treatment with mavacamten over 30 weeks led to significant improvement in exercise capacity, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, NYHA functional class, and health status, as reported by this news organization.
The safety and efficacy findings seen at the end of the blinded, randomized, initial 30-week phase of EXPLORER-LTE were maintained in patients who continued treatment for a median of about 62 weeks.
Mavacamten represents “an almost revolutionary change” for the treatment of oHCM, Maya E. Guglin, MD, professor of clinical medicine and an advanced heart failure physician at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said during a press briefing earlier this month at the American College of Cardiology 2022 Scientific Session earlier this month.
“Until now, there was no good medical treatment for symptomatic oHCM. This will change the landscape, and without question it will change guidelines for treating oHCM,” Dr. Guglin said.
The product information for mavacamten includes a boxed warning citing a risk for heart failure.
Echocardiogram assessments of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are required before and during treatment.
Starting mavacamten in patients with LVEF below 55% is not recommended and the drug should be interrupted if LVEF falls below 50% at any visit or if the patient experiences heart failure symptoms or worsening clinical status.
Concomitant use of mavacamten with certain cytochrome P450 inhibitors or discontinuation of certain cytochrome P450 inducers can increase the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction. Therefore, its use is contraindicated in patients using moderate to strong CYP2C19 inhibitors or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, and moderate to strong CYP2C19 inducers or moderate to strong CYP3A4 inducers.
Because of the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction, mavacamten is only available through the Camzyos Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved mavacamten (Camzyos, Bristol Myers Squibb) to improve functional capacity and symptoms in adults with symptomatic New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM).
Mavacamten is the first FDA-approved allosteric and reversible inhibitor selective for cardiac myosin that targets the underlying pathophysiology of the genetic disorder. It’s available in 2.5-mg, 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg capsules.
“The approval of Camzyos represents a significant milestone for appropriate symptomatic obstructive HCM patients and their families, who have long awaited a new treatment option for this chronic and progressive disease,” Anjali T. Owens, MD, medical director of the Center for Inherited Cardiac Disease and assistant professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.
‘Revolutionary’ change
The approval of mavacamten was based on data from the pivotal EXPLORER-HCM and EXPLORER-LTE (long-term extension) trial of adults with symptomatic NYHA class II-III oHCM.
In EXPLORER-HCM, treatment with mavacamten over 30 weeks led to significant improvement in exercise capacity, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, NYHA functional class, and health status, as reported by this news organization.
The safety and efficacy findings seen at the end of the blinded, randomized, initial 30-week phase of EXPLORER-LTE were maintained in patients who continued treatment for a median of about 62 weeks.
Mavacamten represents “an almost revolutionary change” for the treatment of oHCM, Maya E. Guglin, MD, professor of clinical medicine and an advanced heart failure physician at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said during a press briefing earlier this month at the American College of Cardiology 2022 Scientific Session earlier this month.
“Until now, there was no good medical treatment for symptomatic oHCM. This will change the landscape, and without question it will change guidelines for treating oHCM,” Dr. Guglin said.
The product information for mavacamten includes a boxed warning citing a risk for heart failure.
Echocardiogram assessments of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are required before and during treatment.
Starting mavacamten in patients with LVEF below 55% is not recommended and the drug should be interrupted if LVEF falls below 50% at any visit or if the patient experiences heart failure symptoms or worsening clinical status.
Concomitant use of mavacamten with certain cytochrome P450 inhibitors or discontinuation of certain cytochrome P450 inducers can increase the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction. Therefore, its use is contraindicated in patients using moderate to strong CYP2C19 inhibitors or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, and moderate to strong CYP2C19 inducers or moderate to strong CYP3A4 inducers.
Because of the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction, mavacamten is only available through the Camzyos Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved mavacamten (Camzyos, Bristol Myers Squibb) to improve functional capacity and symptoms in adults with symptomatic New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM).
Mavacamten is the first FDA-approved allosteric and reversible inhibitor selective for cardiac myosin that targets the underlying pathophysiology of the genetic disorder. It’s available in 2.5-mg, 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg capsules.
“The approval of Camzyos represents a significant milestone for appropriate symptomatic obstructive HCM patients and their families, who have long awaited a new treatment option for this chronic and progressive disease,” Anjali T. Owens, MD, medical director of the Center for Inherited Cardiac Disease and assistant professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.
‘Revolutionary’ change
The approval of mavacamten was based on data from the pivotal EXPLORER-HCM and EXPLORER-LTE (long-term extension) trial of adults with symptomatic NYHA class II-III oHCM.
In EXPLORER-HCM, treatment with mavacamten over 30 weeks led to significant improvement in exercise capacity, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, NYHA functional class, and health status, as reported by this news organization.
The safety and efficacy findings seen at the end of the blinded, randomized, initial 30-week phase of EXPLORER-LTE were maintained in patients who continued treatment for a median of about 62 weeks.
Mavacamten represents “an almost revolutionary change” for the treatment of oHCM, Maya E. Guglin, MD, professor of clinical medicine and an advanced heart failure physician at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said during a press briefing earlier this month at the American College of Cardiology 2022 Scientific Session earlier this month.
“Until now, there was no good medical treatment for symptomatic oHCM. This will change the landscape, and without question it will change guidelines for treating oHCM,” Dr. Guglin said.
The product information for mavacamten includes a boxed warning citing a risk for heart failure.
Echocardiogram assessments of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are required before and during treatment.
Starting mavacamten in patients with LVEF below 55% is not recommended and the drug should be interrupted if LVEF falls below 50% at any visit or if the patient experiences heart failure symptoms or worsening clinical status.
Concomitant use of mavacamten with certain cytochrome P450 inhibitors or discontinuation of certain cytochrome P450 inducers can increase the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction. Therefore, its use is contraindicated in patients using moderate to strong CYP2C19 inhibitors or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, and moderate to strong CYP2C19 inducers or moderate to strong CYP3A4 inducers.
Because of the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction, mavacamten is only available through the Camzyos Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA warns of pump defect with Medtronic HVAD system
Patients implanted with the Medtronic HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) System who develop pump thrombosis could have a welding defect in the internal pump causing the pump to malfunction, the Food and Drug Administration said in a letter to health care professionals.
Medtronic has sent providers an urgent medical device notice about the pump weld defect and is trying to identify which HVAD pumps are affected.
The Medtronic HVAD System was approved as a bridge to heart transplantation in 2012. Since then, it has been fraught with problems.
This past June, the company announced it was stopping all sales of the device and advised physicians to stop implanting it, as reported by this news organization.
Pump thrombosis
Medtronic has received complaints of suspected pump thrombosis in three patients with the HVAD System.
All three patients presented with one or more of the following signs or symptoms: grinding sound, transient power spikes on log files and high watt alarms, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and low motor speed resulting in low perfusion or dizziness or lightheadedness.
Inspection of the returned pumps in these three cases identified a malfunction of the internal pump. The pumps were exchanged in all three patients. Two patients died after the pump exchange.
The FDA does not recommend the elective removal of properly functioning systems.
“Decisions about removing or exchanging the Medtronic HVAD System should be made by health care providers and patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the patient’s clinical status and surgical risks,” the agency advised.
Patients who present with one or more of the signs or symptoms of pump thrombosis should be first treated for pump thrombosis.
If symptoms fail to resolve, providers may consider whether the patient is a candidate for pump exchange, heart transplant, or pump explant for recovery, taking into account the patient’s clinical condition and surgical risks.
For patients with any of the signs and symptoms of pump thrombosis, logfiles from the controller should be uploaded to Medtronic.
The FDA is working with Medtronic to monitor for any adverse events related to pump weld defects and ensure patients with the HVAD implant continue to receive appropriate follow-up monitoring.
Problems related to the Medtronic HVAD System should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients implanted with the Medtronic HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) System who develop pump thrombosis could have a welding defect in the internal pump causing the pump to malfunction, the Food and Drug Administration said in a letter to health care professionals.
Medtronic has sent providers an urgent medical device notice about the pump weld defect and is trying to identify which HVAD pumps are affected.
The Medtronic HVAD System was approved as a bridge to heart transplantation in 2012. Since then, it has been fraught with problems.
This past June, the company announced it was stopping all sales of the device and advised physicians to stop implanting it, as reported by this news organization.
Pump thrombosis
Medtronic has received complaints of suspected pump thrombosis in three patients with the HVAD System.
All three patients presented with one or more of the following signs or symptoms: grinding sound, transient power spikes on log files and high watt alarms, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and low motor speed resulting in low perfusion or dizziness or lightheadedness.
Inspection of the returned pumps in these three cases identified a malfunction of the internal pump. The pumps were exchanged in all three patients. Two patients died after the pump exchange.
The FDA does not recommend the elective removal of properly functioning systems.
“Decisions about removing or exchanging the Medtronic HVAD System should be made by health care providers and patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the patient’s clinical status and surgical risks,” the agency advised.
Patients who present with one or more of the signs or symptoms of pump thrombosis should be first treated for pump thrombosis.
If symptoms fail to resolve, providers may consider whether the patient is a candidate for pump exchange, heart transplant, or pump explant for recovery, taking into account the patient’s clinical condition and surgical risks.
For patients with any of the signs and symptoms of pump thrombosis, logfiles from the controller should be uploaded to Medtronic.
The FDA is working with Medtronic to monitor for any adverse events related to pump weld defects and ensure patients with the HVAD implant continue to receive appropriate follow-up monitoring.
Problems related to the Medtronic HVAD System should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients implanted with the Medtronic HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) System who develop pump thrombosis could have a welding defect in the internal pump causing the pump to malfunction, the Food and Drug Administration said in a letter to health care professionals.
Medtronic has sent providers an urgent medical device notice about the pump weld defect and is trying to identify which HVAD pumps are affected.
The Medtronic HVAD System was approved as a bridge to heart transplantation in 2012. Since then, it has been fraught with problems.
This past June, the company announced it was stopping all sales of the device and advised physicians to stop implanting it, as reported by this news organization.
Pump thrombosis
Medtronic has received complaints of suspected pump thrombosis in three patients with the HVAD System.
All three patients presented with one or more of the following signs or symptoms: grinding sound, transient power spikes on log files and high watt alarms, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and low motor speed resulting in low perfusion or dizziness or lightheadedness.
Inspection of the returned pumps in these three cases identified a malfunction of the internal pump. The pumps were exchanged in all three patients. Two patients died after the pump exchange.
The FDA does not recommend the elective removal of properly functioning systems.
“Decisions about removing or exchanging the Medtronic HVAD System should be made by health care providers and patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the patient’s clinical status and surgical risks,” the agency advised.
Patients who present with one or more of the signs or symptoms of pump thrombosis should be first treated for pump thrombosis.
If symptoms fail to resolve, providers may consider whether the patient is a candidate for pump exchange, heart transplant, or pump explant for recovery, taking into account the patient’s clinical condition and surgical risks.
For patients with any of the signs and symptoms of pump thrombosis, logfiles from the controller should be uploaded to Medtronic.
The FDA is working with Medtronic to monitor for any adverse events related to pump weld defects and ensure patients with the HVAD implant continue to receive appropriate follow-up monitoring.
Problems related to the Medtronic HVAD System should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Implant may alleviate sleep apnea in teens with Down syndrome
Upper airway hypoglossal nerve stimulation is safe and effective in adolescents with Down syndrome and severe persistent obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) occurring after adenotonsillectomy and who couldn’t tolerate positive airway pressure, early research suggests.
In a phase I study, 42 adolescents received a surgically implanted device that moves the tongue forward during sleep. Results at 1-year follow-up showed 66% “responded well” to treatment and showed a drop in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of at least 50%.
“Parents came back to us and said not only is the sleep better but my child seems to be doing better during the day,” lead investigator Christopher Hartnick, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology and the Pediatric Airway, Voice, and Swallowing Center at Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, told this news organization.
The findings were published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.
Limited options
Upper airway simulation has been shown previously to be effective for adults with OSA, but up until now, the process has not been evaluated in children.
The device used in the current study “stimulates the hypoglossal nerve to protrude the tongue and open the airway on inspiration during sleep,” the investigators note.
“Hypoglossal nerve stimulation may be a particularly suitable therapy for patients with Down syndrome because it can augment neuromuscular airway tone and reduce anatomical obstruction at the base of the tongue, a common site of residual obstruction in children with Down syndrome,” they add.
“This study was born out of the frustration of not having an effective treatment option for children with Down syndrome who struggle with sleep apnea,” Dr. Hartnick said in a news release.
A total of 42 adolescents (67% male; mean age, 15 years) with Down syndrome and persistent severe OSA after adenotonsillectomy were implanted with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator. All were followed for 12 months.
The surgery was safe, with the most common adverse event being temporary tongue discomfort in five patients (12%). This typically resolved in weeks, the researchers note.
High response, adherence rates
Results showed response rates and adherence to therapy was high. The mean duration of nightly therapy was 9 hours, with 40 children (95.2%) using the device at least 4 hours every night.
The implant was also effective, with a mean decrease in AHI of 12.9 events per hour (95% confidence interval, –17.0 to –8.7 events per hour).
Nearly two-thirds of the children had at least a 50% reduction in their AHI, while roughly three-fourths had a 12-month follow-up AHI of less than 10 events per hour.
There were also significant improvements in polysomnographic and parent-reported quality of life outcomes 12 months after the implant, including improvement in sleep and daily functioning, behavior, and language.
“Sleep apnea remains one of the most common conditions that I grapple with working with patients with Down syndrome and their families,” co-investigator Brian Skotko, MD, Emma Campbell endowed chair on Down syndrome at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the release.
“Until now, so many of our patients had run out of treatment options, and their health and well-being were declining. Now, with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator treatment, we may have an effective and safe way to treat apnea and maximize brain health for people with Down syndrome,” Dr. Skotko added.
Dr. Hartnick and Dr. Skotko have received a $4 million, 5-year grant from the National Institutes of Health to assess whether upper airway stimulation might help cognition in children with Down syndrome.
Landmark investigation
Co-authors of an invited commentary said they “applaud” the researchers for their “landmark” investigation, which demonstrated a response to upper airway stimulation in children with Down syndrome and OSA that is on par with what has been achieved in adults with OSA.
“They have established the safety of the procedure; however, future research is necessary to optimize the results of implant,” write Norman Friedman, MD, and Katherine Green, MD, both from the department of otolaryngology – head and neck surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.
“Further assessment regarding patient selection and the systematic preoperative identification of potential barriers that might affect successful use of therapy will be beneficial to improve longitudinal outcomes and success in this population that is uniquely different from the adult cohorts that have received implants to date,” they add.
The study was funded by Inspire Medical Systems, which provided eight devices for the study but otherwise did not have a role in its design and conduct. The LuMind IDSC Down Syndrome Foundation also provided funding for the study. Dr. Hartnick and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of disclosures for the other investigators is available in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Upper airway hypoglossal nerve stimulation is safe and effective in adolescents with Down syndrome and severe persistent obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) occurring after adenotonsillectomy and who couldn’t tolerate positive airway pressure, early research suggests.
In a phase I study, 42 adolescents received a surgically implanted device that moves the tongue forward during sleep. Results at 1-year follow-up showed 66% “responded well” to treatment and showed a drop in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of at least 50%.
“Parents came back to us and said not only is the sleep better but my child seems to be doing better during the day,” lead investigator Christopher Hartnick, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology and the Pediatric Airway, Voice, and Swallowing Center at Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, told this news organization.
The findings were published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.
Limited options
Upper airway simulation has been shown previously to be effective for adults with OSA, but up until now, the process has not been evaluated in children.
The device used in the current study “stimulates the hypoglossal nerve to protrude the tongue and open the airway on inspiration during sleep,” the investigators note.
“Hypoglossal nerve stimulation may be a particularly suitable therapy for patients with Down syndrome because it can augment neuromuscular airway tone and reduce anatomical obstruction at the base of the tongue, a common site of residual obstruction in children with Down syndrome,” they add.
“This study was born out of the frustration of not having an effective treatment option for children with Down syndrome who struggle with sleep apnea,” Dr. Hartnick said in a news release.
A total of 42 adolescents (67% male; mean age, 15 years) with Down syndrome and persistent severe OSA after adenotonsillectomy were implanted with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator. All were followed for 12 months.
The surgery was safe, with the most common adverse event being temporary tongue discomfort in five patients (12%). This typically resolved in weeks, the researchers note.
High response, adherence rates
Results showed response rates and adherence to therapy was high. The mean duration of nightly therapy was 9 hours, with 40 children (95.2%) using the device at least 4 hours every night.
The implant was also effective, with a mean decrease in AHI of 12.9 events per hour (95% confidence interval, –17.0 to –8.7 events per hour).
Nearly two-thirds of the children had at least a 50% reduction in their AHI, while roughly three-fourths had a 12-month follow-up AHI of less than 10 events per hour.
There were also significant improvements in polysomnographic and parent-reported quality of life outcomes 12 months after the implant, including improvement in sleep and daily functioning, behavior, and language.
“Sleep apnea remains one of the most common conditions that I grapple with working with patients with Down syndrome and their families,” co-investigator Brian Skotko, MD, Emma Campbell endowed chair on Down syndrome at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the release.
“Until now, so many of our patients had run out of treatment options, and their health and well-being were declining. Now, with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator treatment, we may have an effective and safe way to treat apnea and maximize brain health for people with Down syndrome,” Dr. Skotko added.
Dr. Hartnick and Dr. Skotko have received a $4 million, 5-year grant from the National Institutes of Health to assess whether upper airway stimulation might help cognition in children with Down syndrome.
Landmark investigation
Co-authors of an invited commentary said they “applaud” the researchers for their “landmark” investigation, which demonstrated a response to upper airway stimulation in children with Down syndrome and OSA that is on par with what has been achieved in adults with OSA.
“They have established the safety of the procedure; however, future research is necessary to optimize the results of implant,” write Norman Friedman, MD, and Katherine Green, MD, both from the department of otolaryngology – head and neck surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.
“Further assessment regarding patient selection and the systematic preoperative identification of potential barriers that might affect successful use of therapy will be beneficial to improve longitudinal outcomes and success in this population that is uniquely different from the adult cohorts that have received implants to date,” they add.
The study was funded by Inspire Medical Systems, which provided eight devices for the study but otherwise did not have a role in its design and conduct. The LuMind IDSC Down Syndrome Foundation also provided funding for the study. Dr. Hartnick and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of disclosures for the other investigators is available in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Upper airway hypoglossal nerve stimulation is safe and effective in adolescents with Down syndrome and severe persistent obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) occurring after adenotonsillectomy and who couldn’t tolerate positive airway pressure, early research suggests.
In a phase I study, 42 adolescents received a surgically implanted device that moves the tongue forward during sleep. Results at 1-year follow-up showed 66% “responded well” to treatment and showed a drop in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of at least 50%.
“Parents came back to us and said not only is the sleep better but my child seems to be doing better during the day,” lead investigator Christopher Hartnick, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology and the Pediatric Airway, Voice, and Swallowing Center at Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, told this news organization.
The findings were published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.
Limited options
Upper airway simulation has been shown previously to be effective for adults with OSA, but up until now, the process has not been evaluated in children.
The device used in the current study “stimulates the hypoglossal nerve to protrude the tongue and open the airway on inspiration during sleep,” the investigators note.
“Hypoglossal nerve stimulation may be a particularly suitable therapy for patients with Down syndrome because it can augment neuromuscular airway tone and reduce anatomical obstruction at the base of the tongue, a common site of residual obstruction in children with Down syndrome,” they add.
“This study was born out of the frustration of not having an effective treatment option for children with Down syndrome who struggle with sleep apnea,” Dr. Hartnick said in a news release.
A total of 42 adolescents (67% male; mean age, 15 years) with Down syndrome and persistent severe OSA after adenotonsillectomy were implanted with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator. All were followed for 12 months.
The surgery was safe, with the most common adverse event being temporary tongue discomfort in five patients (12%). This typically resolved in weeks, the researchers note.
High response, adherence rates
Results showed response rates and adherence to therapy was high. The mean duration of nightly therapy was 9 hours, with 40 children (95.2%) using the device at least 4 hours every night.
The implant was also effective, with a mean decrease in AHI of 12.9 events per hour (95% confidence interval, –17.0 to –8.7 events per hour).
Nearly two-thirds of the children had at least a 50% reduction in their AHI, while roughly three-fourths had a 12-month follow-up AHI of less than 10 events per hour.
There were also significant improvements in polysomnographic and parent-reported quality of life outcomes 12 months after the implant, including improvement in sleep and daily functioning, behavior, and language.
“Sleep apnea remains one of the most common conditions that I grapple with working with patients with Down syndrome and their families,” co-investigator Brian Skotko, MD, Emma Campbell endowed chair on Down syndrome at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the release.
“Until now, so many of our patients had run out of treatment options, and their health and well-being were declining. Now, with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator treatment, we may have an effective and safe way to treat apnea and maximize brain health for people with Down syndrome,” Dr. Skotko added.
Dr. Hartnick and Dr. Skotko have received a $4 million, 5-year grant from the National Institutes of Health to assess whether upper airway stimulation might help cognition in children with Down syndrome.
Landmark investigation
Co-authors of an invited commentary said they “applaud” the researchers for their “landmark” investigation, which demonstrated a response to upper airway stimulation in children with Down syndrome and OSA that is on par with what has been achieved in adults with OSA.
“They have established the safety of the procedure; however, future research is necessary to optimize the results of implant,” write Norman Friedman, MD, and Katherine Green, MD, both from the department of otolaryngology – head and neck surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.
“Further assessment regarding patient selection and the systematic preoperative identification of potential barriers that might affect successful use of therapy will be beneficial to improve longitudinal outcomes and success in this population that is uniquely different from the adult cohorts that have received implants to date,” they add.
The study was funded by Inspire Medical Systems, which provided eight devices for the study but otherwise did not have a role in its design and conduct. The LuMind IDSC Down Syndrome Foundation also provided funding for the study. Dr. Hartnick and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of disclosures for the other investigators is available in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pfizer recalls more quinapril because of potential carcinogen
, the company announced.
The Accupril recall comes one month after Pfizer recalled six lots of Accuretic (Quinapril HCI/hydrochlorathiazide) tablets for the same problem.
Accupril is indicated for the treatment of hypertension and management of heart failure when added to conventional therapy, including diuretics and/or digitalis.
To date, Pfizer is not aware of any reports of adverse events related to the Accupril recall, and the company believes the benefit/risk profile remains positive based on currently available data.
“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” the company said April 22 in a news release.
Patients currently taking the recalled products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.
The recalled Accupril tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed nationwide to wholesalers and distributors in the United States and Puerto Rico from December 2019 to April 2022.
National drug codes (NDC), lot numbers, and expiration dates are listed in the company announcement posted on the Food and Drug Administration’s website.
Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-345-0481 Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET for instructions on how to return the product and obtain reimbursement.
Healthcare providers with questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 9 PM ET.
Adverse reactions or quality problems related to this recall should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the company announced.
The Accupril recall comes one month after Pfizer recalled six lots of Accuretic (Quinapril HCI/hydrochlorathiazide) tablets for the same problem.
Accupril is indicated for the treatment of hypertension and management of heart failure when added to conventional therapy, including diuretics and/or digitalis.
To date, Pfizer is not aware of any reports of adverse events related to the Accupril recall, and the company believes the benefit/risk profile remains positive based on currently available data.
“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” the company said April 22 in a news release.
Patients currently taking the recalled products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.
The recalled Accupril tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed nationwide to wholesalers and distributors in the United States and Puerto Rico from December 2019 to April 2022.
National drug codes (NDC), lot numbers, and expiration dates are listed in the company announcement posted on the Food and Drug Administration’s website.
Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-345-0481 Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET for instructions on how to return the product and obtain reimbursement.
Healthcare providers with questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 9 PM ET.
Adverse reactions or quality problems related to this recall should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the company announced.
The Accupril recall comes one month after Pfizer recalled six lots of Accuretic (Quinapril HCI/hydrochlorathiazide) tablets for the same problem.
Accupril is indicated for the treatment of hypertension and management of heart failure when added to conventional therapy, including diuretics and/or digitalis.
To date, Pfizer is not aware of any reports of adverse events related to the Accupril recall, and the company believes the benefit/risk profile remains positive based on currently available data.
“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” the company said April 22 in a news release.
Patients currently taking the recalled products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.
The recalled Accupril tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed nationwide to wholesalers and distributors in the United States and Puerto Rico from December 2019 to April 2022.
National drug codes (NDC), lot numbers, and expiration dates are listed in the company announcement posted on the Food and Drug Administration’s website.
Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-345-0481 Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET for instructions on how to return the product and obtain reimbursement.
Healthcare providers with questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 9 PM ET.
Adverse reactions or quality problems related to this recall should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antidepressant study yields controversial findings
Researchers who conducted the study admit this finding was unexpected, and outside experts say no firm conclusions can be drawn from the research.
“Of course we were surprised by the results,” first author Omar Almohammed, PharmD, PhD, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, told this news organization.
“We were expecting to see some positive impact with the use of antidepressant medications on the HRQoL measures when we compared these patients to patients that did not use antidepressant medications,” Dr. Almohammed said.
The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
Controversial impact on quality of life
Depression is known to harm HRQoL. Despite evidence that antidepressants improve depressed mood, their effect on patients’ overall well-being and HRQoL remains controversial.
The researchers examined the effect of antidepressants on HRQoL in adults with depression using 11 years of data from the U.S. Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), a large longitudinal survey that tracks health service use in the United States. HRQoL was measured using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12).
On average, about 17.5 million adults were diagnosed with depression each year during the study period (2005-2016). More than half (57.6%) of these patients were treated with antidepressants.
Patients with depression had an average age of 48.3 years. Women made up more than two-thirds of the total sample (68%), and more women than men received antidepressants (61% vs. 52%).
Compared with no antidepressant use, antidepressant use was associated with some improvement on the mental, but not physical, component of the SF-12, the researchers report.
However, difference-in-differences (D-I-D) univariate analysis showed no significant difference between adults using and not using antidepressants in the SF-12 physical (-0.35 vs. -0.34; P = .9,595) or mental component (1.28 vs. 1.13; P = .6,405).
“The multivariate D-I-D analyses ensured the robustness of these results,” the researchers note.
The change in HRQoL observed in patients using antidepressants was not significantly different from that seen among peers not using these drugs, the researchers report.
“We are not saying that antidepressant medications are not helpful at all; HRQoL is only one of many measures intended to assess health outcomes,” Dr. Almohammed told this news organization.
“Based on our research design and data, we can only say that patients who used antidepressant medications did not experience better change in terms of HRQoL compared to patients who did not use antidepressant medications,” he said.
“These patients may have had some improvement on other clinical outcome measures, but that clinical improvement did not have a significant positive impact on HRQoL,” he noted.
“We still recommend that patients continue using their antidepressant medications, but they may want to ask their doctors to provide them with other nonpharmacologic interventions as this may have additional impact on their HRQoL,” Dr. Almohammed said.
Further research is needed to address a “gap in knowledge” about the impact of nondrug interventions – alone or in combination with antidepressant medications – on patients’ HRQoL, Dr. Almohammed added.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center.
Gemma Lewis, PhD, with University College London (UCL), noted that “clinical trials with experimental designs have found that antidepressants improve mental health-related quality of life.”
“In this study, the people who received antidepressants had worse quality of life, and are likely to have been more severely depressed, than those who did not. This type of bias is difficult to eliminate in a naturalistic study like this, which does not involve an experimental design,” Dr. Lewis commented.
Eduard Vieta, PhD, with University of Barcelona, noted the “inability to control for severity of depression between the two different groups is a crucial flaw, and therefore, there is little we can learn from this data.”
Echoing Dr. Vieta, David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with UCL Genetics Institute, said, “One might well assume that the people who were taking antidepressants had been more severely depressed than those who were not.”
“From this point of view, one could argue that it seems that the antidepressants were effective and that with their use people who had presented with more severe depression did not have markedly reduced quality of life,” Dr. Curtis said.
“However, the reality is that this kind of observational study tells us nothing about causation. For that, clinical trials are required, and numerous such trials have demonstrated that, on average, antidepressants are effective in terms of treating depressive illness and in improving the quality of life of patients with significant depression,” he added.
Michael Sharpe, MD, with University of Oxford, said the study highlights the importance of measuring the long-term outcomes of treatments for depression. “However, this study has no clear implication for the care of patients with depression and certainly should not discourage patients who may benefit from taking these drugs.”
Livia de Picker, MD, PhD, with University of Antwerp, Belgium, said, “What these data do point towards is the persistent treatment gap for depression in the United States, with only 57.6% of patients with major depressive disorder receiving treatment with antidepressants over a 2-year follow-up.”
Funding for the study was provided by King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Dr. Almohammed, Dr. de Picker, Dr. Curtis, Dr. Lewis, and Dr. Sharpe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vieta has participated in clinical trials of antidepressants and advisory boards for Angelini, Biogen, Janssen, and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers who conducted the study admit this finding was unexpected, and outside experts say no firm conclusions can be drawn from the research.
“Of course we were surprised by the results,” first author Omar Almohammed, PharmD, PhD, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, told this news organization.
“We were expecting to see some positive impact with the use of antidepressant medications on the HRQoL measures when we compared these patients to patients that did not use antidepressant medications,” Dr. Almohammed said.
The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
Controversial impact on quality of life
Depression is known to harm HRQoL. Despite evidence that antidepressants improve depressed mood, their effect on patients’ overall well-being and HRQoL remains controversial.
The researchers examined the effect of antidepressants on HRQoL in adults with depression using 11 years of data from the U.S. Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), a large longitudinal survey that tracks health service use in the United States. HRQoL was measured using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12).
On average, about 17.5 million adults were diagnosed with depression each year during the study period (2005-2016). More than half (57.6%) of these patients were treated with antidepressants.
Patients with depression had an average age of 48.3 years. Women made up more than two-thirds of the total sample (68%), and more women than men received antidepressants (61% vs. 52%).
Compared with no antidepressant use, antidepressant use was associated with some improvement on the mental, but not physical, component of the SF-12, the researchers report.
However, difference-in-differences (D-I-D) univariate analysis showed no significant difference between adults using and not using antidepressants in the SF-12 physical (-0.35 vs. -0.34; P = .9,595) or mental component (1.28 vs. 1.13; P = .6,405).
“The multivariate D-I-D analyses ensured the robustness of these results,” the researchers note.
The change in HRQoL observed in patients using antidepressants was not significantly different from that seen among peers not using these drugs, the researchers report.
“We are not saying that antidepressant medications are not helpful at all; HRQoL is only one of many measures intended to assess health outcomes,” Dr. Almohammed told this news organization.
“Based on our research design and data, we can only say that patients who used antidepressant medications did not experience better change in terms of HRQoL compared to patients who did not use antidepressant medications,” he said.
“These patients may have had some improvement on other clinical outcome measures, but that clinical improvement did not have a significant positive impact on HRQoL,” he noted.
“We still recommend that patients continue using their antidepressant medications, but they may want to ask their doctors to provide them with other nonpharmacologic interventions as this may have additional impact on their HRQoL,” Dr. Almohammed said.
Further research is needed to address a “gap in knowledge” about the impact of nondrug interventions – alone or in combination with antidepressant medications – on patients’ HRQoL, Dr. Almohammed added.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center.
Gemma Lewis, PhD, with University College London (UCL), noted that “clinical trials with experimental designs have found that antidepressants improve mental health-related quality of life.”
“In this study, the people who received antidepressants had worse quality of life, and are likely to have been more severely depressed, than those who did not. This type of bias is difficult to eliminate in a naturalistic study like this, which does not involve an experimental design,” Dr. Lewis commented.
Eduard Vieta, PhD, with University of Barcelona, noted the “inability to control for severity of depression between the two different groups is a crucial flaw, and therefore, there is little we can learn from this data.”
Echoing Dr. Vieta, David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with UCL Genetics Institute, said, “One might well assume that the people who were taking antidepressants had been more severely depressed than those who were not.”
“From this point of view, one could argue that it seems that the antidepressants were effective and that with their use people who had presented with more severe depression did not have markedly reduced quality of life,” Dr. Curtis said.
“However, the reality is that this kind of observational study tells us nothing about causation. For that, clinical trials are required, and numerous such trials have demonstrated that, on average, antidepressants are effective in terms of treating depressive illness and in improving the quality of life of patients with significant depression,” he added.
Michael Sharpe, MD, with University of Oxford, said the study highlights the importance of measuring the long-term outcomes of treatments for depression. “However, this study has no clear implication for the care of patients with depression and certainly should not discourage patients who may benefit from taking these drugs.”
Livia de Picker, MD, PhD, with University of Antwerp, Belgium, said, “What these data do point towards is the persistent treatment gap for depression in the United States, with only 57.6% of patients with major depressive disorder receiving treatment with antidepressants over a 2-year follow-up.”
Funding for the study was provided by King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Dr. Almohammed, Dr. de Picker, Dr. Curtis, Dr. Lewis, and Dr. Sharpe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vieta has participated in clinical trials of antidepressants and advisory boards for Angelini, Biogen, Janssen, and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers who conducted the study admit this finding was unexpected, and outside experts say no firm conclusions can be drawn from the research.
“Of course we were surprised by the results,” first author Omar Almohammed, PharmD, PhD, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, told this news organization.
“We were expecting to see some positive impact with the use of antidepressant medications on the HRQoL measures when we compared these patients to patients that did not use antidepressant medications,” Dr. Almohammed said.
The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
Controversial impact on quality of life
Depression is known to harm HRQoL. Despite evidence that antidepressants improve depressed mood, their effect on patients’ overall well-being and HRQoL remains controversial.
The researchers examined the effect of antidepressants on HRQoL in adults with depression using 11 years of data from the U.S. Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), a large longitudinal survey that tracks health service use in the United States. HRQoL was measured using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12).
On average, about 17.5 million adults were diagnosed with depression each year during the study period (2005-2016). More than half (57.6%) of these patients were treated with antidepressants.
Patients with depression had an average age of 48.3 years. Women made up more than two-thirds of the total sample (68%), and more women than men received antidepressants (61% vs. 52%).
Compared with no antidepressant use, antidepressant use was associated with some improvement on the mental, but not physical, component of the SF-12, the researchers report.
However, difference-in-differences (D-I-D) univariate analysis showed no significant difference between adults using and not using antidepressants in the SF-12 physical (-0.35 vs. -0.34; P = .9,595) or mental component (1.28 vs. 1.13; P = .6,405).
“The multivariate D-I-D analyses ensured the robustness of these results,” the researchers note.
The change in HRQoL observed in patients using antidepressants was not significantly different from that seen among peers not using these drugs, the researchers report.
“We are not saying that antidepressant medications are not helpful at all; HRQoL is only one of many measures intended to assess health outcomes,” Dr. Almohammed told this news organization.
“Based on our research design and data, we can only say that patients who used antidepressant medications did not experience better change in terms of HRQoL compared to patients who did not use antidepressant medications,” he said.
“These patients may have had some improvement on other clinical outcome measures, but that clinical improvement did not have a significant positive impact on HRQoL,” he noted.
“We still recommend that patients continue using their antidepressant medications, but they may want to ask their doctors to provide them with other nonpharmacologic interventions as this may have additional impact on their HRQoL,” Dr. Almohammed said.
Further research is needed to address a “gap in knowledge” about the impact of nondrug interventions – alone or in combination with antidepressant medications – on patients’ HRQoL, Dr. Almohammed added.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center.
Gemma Lewis, PhD, with University College London (UCL), noted that “clinical trials with experimental designs have found that antidepressants improve mental health-related quality of life.”
“In this study, the people who received antidepressants had worse quality of life, and are likely to have been more severely depressed, than those who did not. This type of bias is difficult to eliminate in a naturalistic study like this, which does not involve an experimental design,” Dr. Lewis commented.
Eduard Vieta, PhD, with University of Barcelona, noted the “inability to control for severity of depression between the two different groups is a crucial flaw, and therefore, there is little we can learn from this data.”
Echoing Dr. Vieta, David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with UCL Genetics Institute, said, “One might well assume that the people who were taking antidepressants had been more severely depressed than those who were not.”
“From this point of view, one could argue that it seems that the antidepressants were effective and that with their use people who had presented with more severe depression did not have markedly reduced quality of life,” Dr. Curtis said.
“However, the reality is that this kind of observational study tells us nothing about causation. For that, clinical trials are required, and numerous such trials have demonstrated that, on average, antidepressants are effective in terms of treating depressive illness and in improving the quality of life of patients with significant depression,” he added.
Michael Sharpe, MD, with University of Oxford, said the study highlights the importance of measuring the long-term outcomes of treatments for depression. “However, this study has no clear implication for the care of patients with depression and certainly should not discourage patients who may benefit from taking these drugs.”
Livia de Picker, MD, PhD, with University of Antwerp, Belgium, said, “What these data do point towards is the persistent treatment gap for depression in the United States, with only 57.6% of patients with major depressive disorder receiving treatment with antidepressants over a 2-year follow-up.”
Funding for the study was provided by King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Dr. Almohammed, Dr. de Picker, Dr. Curtis, Dr. Lewis, and Dr. Sharpe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vieta has participated in clinical trials of antidepressants and advisory boards for Angelini, Biogen, Janssen, and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.