User login
Schizophrenia meds a key contributor to cognitive impairment
Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.
“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.
“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.
The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Striking’ results
Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.
They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).
The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.
About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.
Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.
For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
Lightening the load
Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.
“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release.
Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.
Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.
The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
“The results imply that if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.
“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
Confirmatory findings
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”
“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.
“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.
“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.
“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.
The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Striking’ results
Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.
They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).
The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.
About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.
Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.
For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
Lightening the load
Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.
“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release.
Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.
Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.
The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
“The results imply that if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.
“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
Confirmatory findings
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”
“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.
“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.
“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.
“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.
The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Striking’ results
Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.
They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).
The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.
About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.
Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.
For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
Lightening the load
Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.
“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release.
Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.
Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.
The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
“The results imply that if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.
“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
Confirmatory findings
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”
“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.
“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Deep brain stimulation is effective over the long haul
, new research indicates.
“Subthalamic nucleus stimulation is a well recognized treatment used for improving motor conditions and quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease. Our study, for the first time, supports its efficacy in the very long term – 15 years after surgery and 25 years since the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” said Elena Moro, MD, PhD, Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France.
“This information is relevant for physicians, patients, and their families when they need to decide about the surgical option to deal with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Moro.
The study was published online June 2 in Neurology.
‘Don’t delay’
The findings are based on 51 patients with Parkinson’s disease who underwent treatment with bilateral STN-DBS for an average of 17 years (range, 15-24 years). Their average age at diagnosis was 40 years, and the average age at device implantation was 51 years.
The results demonstrate that STN-DBS continues to be effective for motor complications for longer than 15 years, reducing time spent with dyskinesia by 75% and time spent in the off-state by 58.7%. This is similar to the amount of improvement seen 1 year after surgery.
Doses of dopaminergic medications continued to be low at long-term follow-up; dosing was reduced by 50.6% compared with baseline.
There was also continued improvement in quality of life. Scores on the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire in the very long term were 13.8% better compared with baseline.
“Few and mostly manageable device-related adverse events were observed during the follow-up,” the authors reported in their article.
“Deep brain stimulation is already recommended when a patient’s conditions are not optimized by medical treatment. Patients with Parkinson’s disease without dementia and in good general health conditions are the best candidates for this surgery,” said Dr. Moro.
“Taking into account our results and the data available in the literature, DBS surgery should not be delayed when motor conditions and quality of life decline despite medical treatment, if patients meet the inclusion criteria,” she added.
A revolutionary treatment
The authors of an accompanying editorial say these results, which indicate better motor outcomes with less medication, “reinforce why STN-DBS has revolutionized treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease.”
Kelvin Chou, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and David Charles, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that longer disease duration is associated with an increase in the likelihood of cognitive impairment and psychosis, both of which are risk factors for nursing home placement, and they limit the ability to use dopaminergic medications.
Although many of the patients in this cohort experienced hallucinations and psychosis over the long follow-up period, “one can imagine that the number and severity would be higher without DBS therapy,” they wrote.
Key caveats, said Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles, are that the results are based on a highly selected cohort and that the patients were managed by experts in the field of movement disorders and DBS.
Additionally, the patients’ conditions were highly responsive to levodopa; there was a 75.3% baseline improvement in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor scores from the off-state to the on-state. In general, most DBS centers consider a levodopa response of approximately 30% as an acceptable cutoff for moving forward with STN-DBS, they noted.
Despite these caveats and limitations, the results of the study are important with respect to counseling potential candidates for DBS, Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles said.
“A common question that patients have is, ‘How long do the benefits of DBS last?’ We can now reassure them that, at least for STN-DBS, improvement in motor complications lasts beyond 15 years and is often accompanied by improvement in quality of life. In other words, with STN-DBS, we can uncomplicate their motor complications for the long haul,” the editorial writers concluded.
The research had no targeted funding. Moro has received honoraria from Medtronic and Abbott for consulting and lecturing and an educational grant from Boston and Newronika. A complete list of disclosures is available with the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research indicates.
“Subthalamic nucleus stimulation is a well recognized treatment used for improving motor conditions and quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease. Our study, for the first time, supports its efficacy in the very long term – 15 years after surgery and 25 years since the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” said Elena Moro, MD, PhD, Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France.
“This information is relevant for physicians, patients, and their families when they need to decide about the surgical option to deal with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Moro.
The study was published online June 2 in Neurology.
‘Don’t delay’
The findings are based on 51 patients with Parkinson’s disease who underwent treatment with bilateral STN-DBS for an average of 17 years (range, 15-24 years). Their average age at diagnosis was 40 years, and the average age at device implantation was 51 years.
The results demonstrate that STN-DBS continues to be effective for motor complications for longer than 15 years, reducing time spent with dyskinesia by 75% and time spent in the off-state by 58.7%. This is similar to the amount of improvement seen 1 year after surgery.
Doses of dopaminergic medications continued to be low at long-term follow-up; dosing was reduced by 50.6% compared with baseline.
There was also continued improvement in quality of life. Scores on the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire in the very long term were 13.8% better compared with baseline.
“Few and mostly manageable device-related adverse events were observed during the follow-up,” the authors reported in their article.
“Deep brain stimulation is already recommended when a patient’s conditions are not optimized by medical treatment. Patients with Parkinson’s disease without dementia and in good general health conditions are the best candidates for this surgery,” said Dr. Moro.
“Taking into account our results and the data available in the literature, DBS surgery should not be delayed when motor conditions and quality of life decline despite medical treatment, if patients meet the inclusion criteria,” she added.
A revolutionary treatment
The authors of an accompanying editorial say these results, which indicate better motor outcomes with less medication, “reinforce why STN-DBS has revolutionized treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease.”
Kelvin Chou, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and David Charles, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that longer disease duration is associated with an increase in the likelihood of cognitive impairment and psychosis, both of which are risk factors for nursing home placement, and they limit the ability to use dopaminergic medications.
Although many of the patients in this cohort experienced hallucinations and psychosis over the long follow-up period, “one can imagine that the number and severity would be higher without DBS therapy,” they wrote.
Key caveats, said Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles, are that the results are based on a highly selected cohort and that the patients were managed by experts in the field of movement disorders and DBS.
Additionally, the patients’ conditions were highly responsive to levodopa; there was a 75.3% baseline improvement in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor scores from the off-state to the on-state. In general, most DBS centers consider a levodopa response of approximately 30% as an acceptable cutoff for moving forward with STN-DBS, they noted.
Despite these caveats and limitations, the results of the study are important with respect to counseling potential candidates for DBS, Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles said.
“A common question that patients have is, ‘How long do the benefits of DBS last?’ We can now reassure them that, at least for STN-DBS, improvement in motor complications lasts beyond 15 years and is often accompanied by improvement in quality of life. In other words, with STN-DBS, we can uncomplicate their motor complications for the long haul,” the editorial writers concluded.
The research had no targeted funding. Moro has received honoraria from Medtronic and Abbott for consulting and lecturing and an educational grant from Boston and Newronika. A complete list of disclosures is available with the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research indicates.
“Subthalamic nucleus stimulation is a well recognized treatment used for improving motor conditions and quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease. Our study, for the first time, supports its efficacy in the very long term – 15 years after surgery and 25 years since the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” said Elena Moro, MD, PhD, Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France.
“This information is relevant for physicians, patients, and their families when they need to decide about the surgical option to deal with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Moro.
The study was published online June 2 in Neurology.
‘Don’t delay’
The findings are based on 51 patients with Parkinson’s disease who underwent treatment with bilateral STN-DBS for an average of 17 years (range, 15-24 years). Their average age at diagnosis was 40 years, and the average age at device implantation was 51 years.
The results demonstrate that STN-DBS continues to be effective for motor complications for longer than 15 years, reducing time spent with dyskinesia by 75% and time spent in the off-state by 58.7%. This is similar to the amount of improvement seen 1 year after surgery.
Doses of dopaminergic medications continued to be low at long-term follow-up; dosing was reduced by 50.6% compared with baseline.
There was also continued improvement in quality of life. Scores on the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire in the very long term were 13.8% better compared with baseline.
“Few and mostly manageable device-related adverse events were observed during the follow-up,” the authors reported in their article.
“Deep brain stimulation is already recommended when a patient’s conditions are not optimized by medical treatment. Patients with Parkinson’s disease without dementia and in good general health conditions are the best candidates for this surgery,” said Dr. Moro.
“Taking into account our results and the data available in the literature, DBS surgery should not be delayed when motor conditions and quality of life decline despite medical treatment, if patients meet the inclusion criteria,” she added.
A revolutionary treatment
The authors of an accompanying editorial say these results, which indicate better motor outcomes with less medication, “reinforce why STN-DBS has revolutionized treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease.”
Kelvin Chou, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and David Charles, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that longer disease duration is associated with an increase in the likelihood of cognitive impairment and psychosis, both of which are risk factors for nursing home placement, and they limit the ability to use dopaminergic medications.
Although many of the patients in this cohort experienced hallucinations and psychosis over the long follow-up period, “one can imagine that the number and severity would be higher without DBS therapy,” they wrote.
Key caveats, said Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles, are that the results are based on a highly selected cohort and that the patients were managed by experts in the field of movement disorders and DBS.
Additionally, the patients’ conditions were highly responsive to levodopa; there was a 75.3% baseline improvement in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor scores from the off-state to the on-state. In general, most DBS centers consider a levodopa response of approximately 30% as an acceptable cutoff for moving forward with STN-DBS, they noted.
Despite these caveats and limitations, the results of the study are important with respect to counseling potential candidates for DBS, Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles said.
“A common question that patients have is, ‘How long do the benefits of DBS last?’ We can now reassure them that, at least for STN-DBS, improvement in motor complications lasts beyond 15 years and is often accompanied by improvement in quality of life. In other words, with STN-DBS, we can uncomplicate their motor complications for the long haul,” the editorial writers concluded.
The research had no targeted funding. Moro has received honoraria from Medtronic and Abbott for consulting and lecturing and an educational grant from Boston and Newronika. A complete list of disclosures is available with the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Neurology
FDA expands rimegepant indication to include migraine prevention
Last year, rimegepant became the first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, available in a fast-acting orally disintegrating tablet, to be approved for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults.
Rimegepant is currently the only migraine medication approved to both treat acute migraine attacks and help prevent future migraine attacks.
The new indication allows for use of rimegepant for preventive treatment in adults with episodic migraine (more than 15 migraine days per month). Rimegepant may be used for up to 18 doses per month, which includes both acute and preventive therapy.
In a phase 2/3 study, oral rimegepant was superior to placebo in reducing monthly migraine days. About half of adults who took rimegepant experienced a 50% or greater reduction in the number of days of moderate to severe migraines per month.
The most common adverse effects of rimegepant therapy were nausea (2.7%) and stomach pain or indigestion (2.4%).
The FDA approval of rimegepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, along with its acute treatment indication, is “one of the most ground-breaking things to happen to migraine treatment in my 40 years of practicing headache medicine,” Peter J. Goadsby, MD, PhD, an investigator in the prevention study, said in a company news release.
“To have one medication patients can use to treat and prevent migraine will likely change the treatment paradigm for many of the millions of people who live with migraine,” said Dr. Goadsby, professor of neurology, University of California, Los Angeles and King’s College, London.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Last year, rimegepant became the first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, available in a fast-acting orally disintegrating tablet, to be approved for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults.
Rimegepant is currently the only migraine medication approved to both treat acute migraine attacks and help prevent future migraine attacks.
The new indication allows for use of rimegepant for preventive treatment in adults with episodic migraine (more than 15 migraine days per month). Rimegepant may be used for up to 18 doses per month, which includes both acute and preventive therapy.
In a phase 2/3 study, oral rimegepant was superior to placebo in reducing monthly migraine days. About half of adults who took rimegepant experienced a 50% or greater reduction in the number of days of moderate to severe migraines per month.
The most common adverse effects of rimegepant therapy were nausea (2.7%) and stomach pain or indigestion (2.4%).
The FDA approval of rimegepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, along with its acute treatment indication, is “one of the most ground-breaking things to happen to migraine treatment in my 40 years of practicing headache medicine,” Peter J. Goadsby, MD, PhD, an investigator in the prevention study, said in a company news release.
“To have one medication patients can use to treat and prevent migraine will likely change the treatment paradigm for many of the millions of people who live with migraine,” said Dr. Goadsby, professor of neurology, University of California, Los Angeles and King’s College, London.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Last year, rimegepant became the first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, available in a fast-acting orally disintegrating tablet, to be approved for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults.
Rimegepant is currently the only migraine medication approved to both treat acute migraine attacks and help prevent future migraine attacks.
The new indication allows for use of rimegepant for preventive treatment in adults with episodic migraine (more than 15 migraine days per month). Rimegepant may be used for up to 18 doses per month, which includes both acute and preventive therapy.
In a phase 2/3 study, oral rimegepant was superior to placebo in reducing monthly migraine days. About half of adults who took rimegepant experienced a 50% or greater reduction in the number of days of moderate to severe migraines per month.
The most common adverse effects of rimegepant therapy were nausea (2.7%) and stomach pain or indigestion (2.4%).
The FDA approval of rimegepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, along with its acute treatment indication, is “one of the most ground-breaking things to happen to migraine treatment in my 40 years of practicing headache medicine,” Peter J. Goadsby, MD, PhD, an investigator in the prevention study, said in a company news release.
“To have one medication patients can use to treat and prevent migraine will likely change the treatment paradigm for many of the millions of people who live with migraine,” said Dr. Goadsby, professor of neurology, University of California, Los Angeles and King’s College, London.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA fast tracks testing of schizophrenia drug for impaired cognition
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough therapy designation for Boehringer Ingelheim’s experimental agent for the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia (CIAS).
The drug, known as BI 425809, is a novel glycine transporter-1 inhibitor.
The company announced it will start the CONNEX phase 3 clinical trial program to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for improving cognition for adults with schizophrenia.
The breakthrough therapy designation and the initiation of phase 3 testing are based on results from a phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Psychiatry.
In the phase 2 trial, oral BI 425809, taken once daily, improved cognition after 12 weeks for patients with schizophrenia; doses of 10 mg and 25 mg showed the largest separation from placebo.
Impairment of cognitive function is a major burden for people with schizophrenia, and no pharmacologic treatments are currently approved for CIAS.
“Cognition is a fundamental aspect of everyday life, including problem solving, memory, and attention, which is why finding solutions for cognitive impairment is a key area of Boehringer Ingelheim mental health research,” Vikas Mohan Sharma, MS, with Boehringer Ingelheim, said in a news release.
“This breakthrough therapy designation further highlights the urgent need for novel treatments for people living with schizophrenia. By combining traditional treatment approaches with new and innovative technologies, we are developing targeted therapies that will help to ease the burden of mental health conditions and enable people living with these conditions to create more meaningful connections to their lives, loved ones, and society,” said Mr. Sharma.
The CONNEX clinical trial program is composed of three clinical trials – CONNEX-1, CONNEX-2, and CONNEX-3. All are phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trials that will examine the efficacy and safety of BI 425809 taken once daily over a 26-week period for patients with schizophrenia.
The CONNEX trial program will use VeraSci’s Pathway electronic clinical outcome assessment platform, including VeraSci’s Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT), which simulates key instrumental activities of daily living in a realistic interactive virtual environment, VeraSci explains in a news release announcing the partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim.
The VRFCAT is sensitive to functional capacity deficits and has been accepted into the FDA’s Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program.
The CONNEX trials will also utilize speech biomarker technology from Aural Analytics, which will provide a “richer picture of trial participants’ cognition alongside more conventional clinical outcome measures,” Boehringer Ingelheim says.
“Several of the symptoms of schizophrenia are generated by cognitive and emotional processes that can be identified through disruptions in the outward flow of speech. Using innovative speech analytics may help to objectively assess the downstream consequences of these disruptions,” said Daniel Jones, Aural Analytics co-founder and CEO.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough therapy designation for Boehringer Ingelheim’s experimental agent for the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia (CIAS).
The drug, known as BI 425809, is a novel glycine transporter-1 inhibitor.
The company announced it will start the CONNEX phase 3 clinical trial program to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for improving cognition for adults with schizophrenia.
The breakthrough therapy designation and the initiation of phase 3 testing are based on results from a phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Psychiatry.
In the phase 2 trial, oral BI 425809, taken once daily, improved cognition after 12 weeks for patients with schizophrenia; doses of 10 mg and 25 mg showed the largest separation from placebo.
Impairment of cognitive function is a major burden for people with schizophrenia, and no pharmacologic treatments are currently approved for CIAS.
“Cognition is a fundamental aspect of everyday life, including problem solving, memory, and attention, which is why finding solutions for cognitive impairment is a key area of Boehringer Ingelheim mental health research,” Vikas Mohan Sharma, MS, with Boehringer Ingelheim, said in a news release.
“This breakthrough therapy designation further highlights the urgent need for novel treatments for people living with schizophrenia. By combining traditional treatment approaches with new and innovative technologies, we are developing targeted therapies that will help to ease the burden of mental health conditions and enable people living with these conditions to create more meaningful connections to their lives, loved ones, and society,” said Mr. Sharma.
The CONNEX clinical trial program is composed of three clinical trials – CONNEX-1, CONNEX-2, and CONNEX-3. All are phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trials that will examine the efficacy and safety of BI 425809 taken once daily over a 26-week period for patients with schizophrenia.
The CONNEX trial program will use VeraSci’s Pathway electronic clinical outcome assessment platform, including VeraSci’s Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT), which simulates key instrumental activities of daily living in a realistic interactive virtual environment, VeraSci explains in a news release announcing the partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim.
The VRFCAT is sensitive to functional capacity deficits and has been accepted into the FDA’s Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program.
The CONNEX trials will also utilize speech biomarker technology from Aural Analytics, which will provide a “richer picture of trial participants’ cognition alongside more conventional clinical outcome measures,” Boehringer Ingelheim says.
“Several of the symptoms of schizophrenia are generated by cognitive and emotional processes that can be identified through disruptions in the outward flow of speech. Using innovative speech analytics may help to objectively assess the downstream consequences of these disruptions,” said Daniel Jones, Aural Analytics co-founder and CEO.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough therapy designation for Boehringer Ingelheim’s experimental agent for the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia (CIAS).
The drug, known as BI 425809, is a novel glycine transporter-1 inhibitor.
The company announced it will start the CONNEX phase 3 clinical trial program to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for improving cognition for adults with schizophrenia.
The breakthrough therapy designation and the initiation of phase 3 testing are based on results from a phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Psychiatry.
In the phase 2 trial, oral BI 425809, taken once daily, improved cognition after 12 weeks for patients with schizophrenia; doses of 10 mg and 25 mg showed the largest separation from placebo.
Impairment of cognitive function is a major burden for people with schizophrenia, and no pharmacologic treatments are currently approved for CIAS.
“Cognition is a fundamental aspect of everyday life, including problem solving, memory, and attention, which is why finding solutions for cognitive impairment is a key area of Boehringer Ingelheim mental health research,” Vikas Mohan Sharma, MS, with Boehringer Ingelheim, said in a news release.
“This breakthrough therapy designation further highlights the urgent need for novel treatments for people living with schizophrenia. By combining traditional treatment approaches with new and innovative technologies, we are developing targeted therapies that will help to ease the burden of mental health conditions and enable people living with these conditions to create more meaningful connections to their lives, loved ones, and society,” said Mr. Sharma.
The CONNEX clinical trial program is composed of three clinical trials – CONNEX-1, CONNEX-2, and CONNEX-3. All are phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trials that will examine the efficacy and safety of BI 425809 taken once daily over a 26-week period for patients with schizophrenia.
The CONNEX trial program will use VeraSci’s Pathway electronic clinical outcome assessment platform, including VeraSci’s Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT), which simulates key instrumental activities of daily living in a realistic interactive virtual environment, VeraSci explains in a news release announcing the partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim.
The VRFCAT is sensitive to functional capacity deficits and has been accepted into the FDA’s Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program.
The CONNEX trials will also utilize speech biomarker technology from Aural Analytics, which will provide a “richer picture of trial participants’ cognition alongside more conventional clinical outcome measures,” Boehringer Ingelheim says.
“Several of the symptoms of schizophrenia are generated by cognitive and emotional processes that can be identified through disruptions in the outward flow of speech. Using innovative speech analytics may help to objectively assess the downstream consequences of these disruptions,” said Daniel Jones, Aural Analytics co-founder and CEO.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Heart benefits of DASH low-sodium diet ‘swift and direct’
New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.
“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.
“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.
The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Renewed focus on diet
“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.
“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.
The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).
The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.
Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.
Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.
In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).
Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.
“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.
“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.
“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.
It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.
“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.
In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”
“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.
The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.
“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.
“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.
The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Renewed focus on diet
“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.
“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.
The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).
The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.
Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.
Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.
In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).
Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.
“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.
“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.
“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.
It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.
“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.
In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”
“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.
The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.
“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.
“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.
The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Renewed focus on diet
“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.
“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.
The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).
The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.
Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.
Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.
In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).
Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.
“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.
“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.
“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.
It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.
“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.
In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”
“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.
The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New AHA/ASA guideline on secondary stroke prevention
When possible, diagnostic tests to determine the cause of a first stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) should be completed within 48 hours after symptom onset, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association said in an updated clinical practice guideline.
“It is critically important to understand the best ways to prevent another stroke once someone has had a stroke or a TIA,” Dawn O. Kleindorfer, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in a news release.
“If we can pinpoint the cause of the first stroke or TIA, we can tailor strategies to prevent a second stroke,” said Dr. Kleindorfer, professor and chair, department of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The updated guideline was published online May 24, 2021, in Stroke.
“The secondary prevention of stroke guideline is one of the ASA’s ‘flagship’ guidelines, last updated in 2014,” Dr. Kleindorfer said.
The update includes “a number of changes to the writing and formatting of this guideline to make it easier for professionals to understand and locate information more quickly, ultimately greatly improving patient care and preventing more strokes in our patients,” she noted.
Let pathogenic subtype guide prevention
For patients who have survived a stroke or TIA, management of vascular risk factors, particularly hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol/triglyceride levels, and smoking cessation, are key secondary prevention tactics, the guideline said.
Limiting salt intake and/or following a heart-healthy Mediterranean diet is also advised, as is engaging in at least moderate-intensity aerobic activity for at least 10 minutes four times a week or vigorous-intensity aerobic activity for at least 20 minutes twice a week.
“Approximately 80% of strokes can be prevented by controlling blood pressure, eating a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight,” Amytis Towfighi, MD, vice chair of the guideline writing group and director of neurologic services, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, noted in the release.
For health care professionals, the guideline said specific recommendations for secondary prevention often depend on the ischemic stroke/TIA subtype. “Therefore, new in this guideline is a section describing recommendations for the diagnostic workup after ischemic stroke, to define ischemic stroke pathogenesis (when possible), and to identify targets for treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Recommendations are now segregated by pathogenetic subtype,” the guideline stated.
Among the recommendations:
- Use multidisciplinary care teams to personalize care for patients and employ shared decision-making with the patient to develop care plans that incorporate a patient’s wishes, goals, and concerns.
- Screen for and initiate anticoagulant drug therapy to reduce recurrent events.
- Prescribe antithrombotic therapy, including antiplatelets or anticoagulants, in the absence of contraindications. The guideline noted that the combination of antiplatelets and anticoagulation is typically not recommended for preventing second strokes and that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) – taking along with a second medication to prevent blood clotting – is recommended in the short term and only for specific patients: those with early arriving minor stroke and high-risk TIA or severe symptomatic stenosis.
- Consider or carotid artery stenting for select patients with narrowing of carotid arteries.
- Aggressive medical management of risk factors and short-term DAPT are preferred for patients with severe intracranial stenosis thought to be the cause of first stroke or TIA.
- In some patients, it’s reasonable to consider percutaneous closure of .
The guideline is accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the benefits and risks of dual antiplatelet versus single antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention. The authors conclude that DAPT may be appropriate for select patients.
“Additional research is needed to determine: the optimal timing of starting treatment relative to the clinical event; the optimal duration of DAPT to maximize the risk-benefit ratio; whether additional populations excluded from POINT and CHANCE [two of the trials examined], such as those with major stroke, may also benefit from early DAPT; and whether certain genetic profiles eliminate the benefit of early DAPT,” concluded the reviewers, led by Devin Brown, MD, University of Michigan.
The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA Stroke Council’s Scientific Statements Oversight Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. The writing group included representatives from the AHA/ASA and the American Academy of Neurology. The guideline has been endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology. It has also been affirmed by the AAN as an educational tool for neurologists.
The research had no commercial funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When possible, diagnostic tests to determine the cause of a first stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) should be completed within 48 hours after symptom onset, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association said in an updated clinical practice guideline.
“It is critically important to understand the best ways to prevent another stroke once someone has had a stroke or a TIA,” Dawn O. Kleindorfer, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in a news release.
“If we can pinpoint the cause of the first stroke or TIA, we can tailor strategies to prevent a second stroke,” said Dr. Kleindorfer, professor and chair, department of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The updated guideline was published online May 24, 2021, in Stroke.
“The secondary prevention of stroke guideline is one of the ASA’s ‘flagship’ guidelines, last updated in 2014,” Dr. Kleindorfer said.
The update includes “a number of changes to the writing and formatting of this guideline to make it easier for professionals to understand and locate information more quickly, ultimately greatly improving patient care and preventing more strokes in our patients,” she noted.
Let pathogenic subtype guide prevention
For patients who have survived a stroke or TIA, management of vascular risk factors, particularly hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol/triglyceride levels, and smoking cessation, are key secondary prevention tactics, the guideline said.
Limiting salt intake and/or following a heart-healthy Mediterranean diet is also advised, as is engaging in at least moderate-intensity aerobic activity for at least 10 minutes four times a week or vigorous-intensity aerobic activity for at least 20 minutes twice a week.
“Approximately 80% of strokes can be prevented by controlling blood pressure, eating a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight,” Amytis Towfighi, MD, vice chair of the guideline writing group and director of neurologic services, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, noted in the release.
For health care professionals, the guideline said specific recommendations for secondary prevention often depend on the ischemic stroke/TIA subtype. “Therefore, new in this guideline is a section describing recommendations for the diagnostic workup after ischemic stroke, to define ischemic stroke pathogenesis (when possible), and to identify targets for treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Recommendations are now segregated by pathogenetic subtype,” the guideline stated.
Among the recommendations:
- Use multidisciplinary care teams to personalize care for patients and employ shared decision-making with the patient to develop care plans that incorporate a patient’s wishes, goals, and concerns.
- Screen for and initiate anticoagulant drug therapy to reduce recurrent events.
- Prescribe antithrombotic therapy, including antiplatelets or anticoagulants, in the absence of contraindications. The guideline noted that the combination of antiplatelets and anticoagulation is typically not recommended for preventing second strokes and that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) – taking along with a second medication to prevent blood clotting – is recommended in the short term and only for specific patients: those with early arriving minor stroke and high-risk TIA or severe symptomatic stenosis.
- Consider or carotid artery stenting for select patients with narrowing of carotid arteries.
- Aggressive medical management of risk factors and short-term DAPT are preferred for patients with severe intracranial stenosis thought to be the cause of first stroke or TIA.
- In some patients, it’s reasonable to consider percutaneous closure of .
The guideline is accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the benefits and risks of dual antiplatelet versus single antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention. The authors conclude that DAPT may be appropriate for select patients.
“Additional research is needed to determine: the optimal timing of starting treatment relative to the clinical event; the optimal duration of DAPT to maximize the risk-benefit ratio; whether additional populations excluded from POINT and CHANCE [two of the trials examined], such as those with major stroke, may also benefit from early DAPT; and whether certain genetic profiles eliminate the benefit of early DAPT,” concluded the reviewers, led by Devin Brown, MD, University of Michigan.
The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA Stroke Council’s Scientific Statements Oversight Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. The writing group included representatives from the AHA/ASA and the American Academy of Neurology. The guideline has been endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology. It has also been affirmed by the AAN as an educational tool for neurologists.
The research had no commercial funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When possible, diagnostic tests to determine the cause of a first stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) should be completed within 48 hours after symptom onset, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association said in an updated clinical practice guideline.
“It is critically important to understand the best ways to prevent another stroke once someone has had a stroke or a TIA,” Dawn O. Kleindorfer, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in a news release.
“If we can pinpoint the cause of the first stroke or TIA, we can tailor strategies to prevent a second stroke,” said Dr. Kleindorfer, professor and chair, department of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The updated guideline was published online May 24, 2021, in Stroke.
“The secondary prevention of stroke guideline is one of the ASA’s ‘flagship’ guidelines, last updated in 2014,” Dr. Kleindorfer said.
The update includes “a number of changes to the writing and formatting of this guideline to make it easier for professionals to understand and locate information more quickly, ultimately greatly improving patient care and preventing more strokes in our patients,” she noted.
Let pathogenic subtype guide prevention
For patients who have survived a stroke or TIA, management of vascular risk factors, particularly hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol/triglyceride levels, and smoking cessation, are key secondary prevention tactics, the guideline said.
Limiting salt intake and/or following a heart-healthy Mediterranean diet is also advised, as is engaging in at least moderate-intensity aerobic activity for at least 10 minutes four times a week or vigorous-intensity aerobic activity for at least 20 minutes twice a week.
“Approximately 80% of strokes can be prevented by controlling blood pressure, eating a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight,” Amytis Towfighi, MD, vice chair of the guideline writing group and director of neurologic services, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, noted in the release.
For health care professionals, the guideline said specific recommendations for secondary prevention often depend on the ischemic stroke/TIA subtype. “Therefore, new in this guideline is a section describing recommendations for the diagnostic workup after ischemic stroke, to define ischemic stroke pathogenesis (when possible), and to identify targets for treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Recommendations are now segregated by pathogenetic subtype,” the guideline stated.
Among the recommendations:
- Use multidisciplinary care teams to personalize care for patients and employ shared decision-making with the patient to develop care plans that incorporate a patient’s wishes, goals, and concerns.
- Screen for and initiate anticoagulant drug therapy to reduce recurrent events.
- Prescribe antithrombotic therapy, including antiplatelets or anticoagulants, in the absence of contraindications. The guideline noted that the combination of antiplatelets and anticoagulation is typically not recommended for preventing second strokes and that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) – taking along with a second medication to prevent blood clotting – is recommended in the short term and only for specific patients: those with early arriving minor stroke and high-risk TIA or severe symptomatic stenosis.
- Consider or carotid artery stenting for select patients with narrowing of carotid arteries.
- Aggressive medical management of risk factors and short-term DAPT are preferred for patients with severe intracranial stenosis thought to be the cause of first stroke or TIA.
- In some patients, it’s reasonable to consider percutaneous closure of .
The guideline is accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the benefits and risks of dual antiplatelet versus single antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention. The authors conclude that DAPT may be appropriate for select patients.
“Additional research is needed to determine: the optimal timing of starting treatment relative to the clinical event; the optimal duration of DAPT to maximize the risk-benefit ratio; whether additional populations excluded from POINT and CHANCE [two of the trials examined], such as those with major stroke, may also benefit from early DAPT; and whether certain genetic profiles eliminate the benefit of early DAPT,” concluded the reviewers, led by Devin Brown, MD, University of Michigan.
The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA Stroke Council’s Scientific Statements Oversight Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. The writing group included representatives from the AHA/ASA and the American Academy of Neurology. The guideline has been endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology. It has also been affirmed by the AAN as an educational tool for neurologists.
The research had no commercial funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA restricts obeticholic acid (Ocaliva) over serious liver injury risk
The risk for serious liver injury with obeticholic acid (Ocaliva, Intercept Pharmaceuticals) has prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to restrict its use in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and advanced cirrhosis.
The agency has added a new contraindication to the obeticholic acid prescribing information and patient medication guide stating that the drug should not be used in patients with PBC and advanced cirrhosis.
The boxed warning on the label has also been revised to include this information.
For patients with PBC who do not have advanced cirrhosis, the FDA believes the benefits of Ocaliva outweigh the risks, based on the original clinical trials.
Five years ago, the FDA granted accelerated approval to obeticholic acid in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as a monotherapy in adults who cannot tolerate UDCA.
Since then, the FDA has identified 25 cases of serious liver injury leading to liver decompensation or liver failure in patients with PBC and cirrhosis who were taking obeticholic acid at recommended doses.
According to the FDA, 18 of the cases happened in patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis who experienced liver injury that led to decompensation. Ten of these patients had evidence or suspicion of portal hypertension at baseline; in the other eight patients, it was unclear whether portal hypertension was present.
PBC was not expected to progress rapidly in these patients, yet they experienced accelerated clinical deterioration within months of starting obeticholic acid, the FDA said.
The median time to liver decompensation after initiating treatment was 4 months (range, 2 weeks to 10 months). Four patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis needed a liver transplant within 1.3 years after starting obeticholic acid, and one patient died from liver failure.
The other seven cases of serious liver injury occurred in patients with PBC and decompensated cirrhosis, two of whom died.
Although there was a temporal relationship between starting obeticholic acid and liver injury, it is difficult to distinguish a drug-induced effect from disease progression in the patients with advanced baseline liver disease, the FDA cautioned.
The median time to a new decompensation event after starting the drug was 2.5 months (range, 10 days to 8 months).
Before starting obeticholic acid, clinicians should determine whether a patient with PBC has advanced cirrhosis as the drug is now contraindicated in these patients, the FDA said.
During obeticholic acid treatment, patients should be routinely monitored for progression of PBC with laboratory and clinical assessments to determine whether the drug needs to be discontinued.
The medication should be permanently discontinued in patients with cirrhosis who progress to advanced cirrhosis.
Patients should also be monitored for clinically significant liver-related adverse reactions that may manifest as development of acute-on-chronic liver disease with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, jaundice, scleral icterus, and/or dark urine.
Obeticholic acid should be stopped permanently in any patient who develops these symptoms, the FDA advised.
Health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of obeticholic acid to MedWatch, FDA’s adverse event reporting site.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The risk for serious liver injury with obeticholic acid (Ocaliva, Intercept Pharmaceuticals) has prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to restrict its use in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and advanced cirrhosis.
The agency has added a new contraindication to the obeticholic acid prescribing information and patient medication guide stating that the drug should not be used in patients with PBC and advanced cirrhosis.
The boxed warning on the label has also been revised to include this information.
For patients with PBC who do not have advanced cirrhosis, the FDA believes the benefits of Ocaliva outweigh the risks, based on the original clinical trials.
Five years ago, the FDA granted accelerated approval to obeticholic acid in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as a monotherapy in adults who cannot tolerate UDCA.
Since then, the FDA has identified 25 cases of serious liver injury leading to liver decompensation or liver failure in patients with PBC and cirrhosis who were taking obeticholic acid at recommended doses.
According to the FDA, 18 of the cases happened in patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis who experienced liver injury that led to decompensation. Ten of these patients had evidence or suspicion of portal hypertension at baseline; in the other eight patients, it was unclear whether portal hypertension was present.
PBC was not expected to progress rapidly in these patients, yet they experienced accelerated clinical deterioration within months of starting obeticholic acid, the FDA said.
The median time to liver decompensation after initiating treatment was 4 months (range, 2 weeks to 10 months). Four patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis needed a liver transplant within 1.3 years after starting obeticholic acid, and one patient died from liver failure.
The other seven cases of serious liver injury occurred in patients with PBC and decompensated cirrhosis, two of whom died.
Although there was a temporal relationship between starting obeticholic acid and liver injury, it is difficult to distinguish a drug-induced effect from disease progression in the patients with advanced baseline liver disease, the FDA cautioned.
The median time to a new decompensation event after starting the drug was 2.5 months (range, 10 days to 8 months).
Before starting obeticholic acid, clinicians should determine whether a patient with PBC has advanced cirrhosis as the drug is now contraindicated in these patients, the FDA said.
During obeticholic acid treatment, patients should be routinely monitored for progression of PBC with laboratory and clinical assessments to determine whether the drug needs to be discontinued.
The medication should be permanently discontinued in patients with cirrhosis who progress to advanced cirrhosis.
Patients should also be monitored for clinically significant liver-related adverse reactions that may manifest as development of acute-on-chronic liver disease with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, jaundice, scleral icterus, and/or dark urine.
Obeticholic acid should be stopped permanently in any patient who develops these symptoms, the FDA advised.
Health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of obeticholic acid to MedWatch, FDA’s adverse event reporting site.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The risk for serious liver injury with obeticholic acid (Ocaliva, Intercept Pharmaceuticals) has prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to restrict its use in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and advanced cirrhosis.
The agency has added a new contraindication to the obeticholic acid prescribing information and patient medication guide stating that the drug should not be used in patients with PBC and advanced cirrhosis.
The boxed warning on the label has also been revised to include this information.
For patients with PBC who do not have advanced cirrhosis, the FDA believes the benefits of Ocaliva outweigh the risks, based on the original clinical trials.
Five years ago, the FDA granted accelerated approval to obeticholic acid in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as a monotherapy in adults who cannot tolerate UDCA.
Since then, the FDA has identified 25 cases of serious liver injury leading to liver decompensation or liver failure in patients with PBC and cirrhosis who were taking obeticholic acid at recommended doses.
According to the FDA, 18 of the cases happened in patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis who experienced liver injury that led to decompensation. Ten of these patients had evidence or suspicion of portal hypertension at baseline; in the other eight patients, it was unclear whether portal hypertension was present.
PBC was not expected to progress rapidly in these patients, yet they experienced accelerated clinical deterioration within months of starting obeticholic acid, the FDA said.
The median time to liver decompensation after initiating treatment was 4 months (range, 2 weeks to 10 months). Four patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis needed a liver transplant within 1.3 years after starting obeticholic acid, and one patient died from liver failure.
The other seven cases of serious liver injury occurred in patients with PBC and decompensated cirrhosis, two of whom died.
Although there was a temporal relationship between starting obeticholic acid and liver injury, it is difficult to distinguish a drug-induced effect from disease progression in the patients with advanced baseline liver disease, the FDA cautioned.
The median time to a new decompensation event after starting the drug was 2.5 months (range, 10 days to 8 months).
Before starting obeticholic acid, clinicians should determine whether a patient with PBC has advanced cirrhosis as the drug is now contraindicated in these patients, the FDA said.
During obeticholic acid treatment, patients should be routinely monitored for progression of PBC with laboratory and clinical assessments to determine whether the drug needs to be discontinued.
The medication should be permanently discontinued in patients with cirrhosis who progress to advanced cirrhosis.
Patients should also be monitored for clinically significant liver-related adverse reactions that may manifest as development of acute-on-chronic liver disease with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, jaundice, scleral icterus, and/or dark urine.
Obeticholic acid should be stopped permanently in any patient who develops these symptoms, the FDA advised.
Health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of obeticholic acid to MedWatch, FDA’s adverse event reporting site.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sustained long-term benefit of gene therapy for SMA
, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.
The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
Single infusion
SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.
In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.
Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.
In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.
The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.
Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.
All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.
These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen).
Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).
Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.
The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said.
The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.
The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
Single infusion
SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.
In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.
Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.
In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.
The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.
Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.
All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.
These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen).
Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).
Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.
The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said.
The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.
The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
Single infusion
SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.
In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.
Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.
In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.
The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.
Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.
All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.
These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen).
Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).
Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.
The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said.
The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiologists’ pay increases, despite COVID-19 impacts
Despite the huge challenges of COVID-19, including a drop in patient visits, cardiologists reported an average increase in income in 2020 and remain among the top earners in medicine, according to the 2021 Medscape Cardiologist Compensation Report.
Although 46% of cardiologists reported some decline in compensation, average cardiologist income was $459,000 in 2020 – up from $438,000 in 2019.
Cardiologist pay is the third highest of all specialties in the overall 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report, which covers U.S. physicians as a whole and almost 18,000 physicians in 29 specialties.
Only plastic surgeons ($526,000) and orthopedists ($511,000) earned more than cardiologists in 2020.
On average among cardiologists, self-employment yields a somewhat higher paycheck than does being employed ($477,000 vs. $450,000).
Just like in last year’s report, nearly two-thirds (61%) of cardiologists overall say they feel fairly compensated.
The average incentive bonus payment for cardiologists in 2020 was 14% of total salary, about the same as last year. Two-thirds of cardiologists who earn an incentive bonus achieve more than three-quarters of their potential annual payment, up from 55% the prior year.
COVID challenges and the road back
The vast majority (92%) of cardiologists who saw a drop in income last year cited COVID-related issues such as job loss, working fewer hours, and seeing fewer patients.
Close to half (48%) of cardiologists who suffered financial or practice-related ill effects as a result of the pandemic expect their income to return to normal this year; 38% believe it will take 2 to 3 years. Notably, 45% of physicians overall said the pandemic did not cause them financial or practice-related harm.
Physician work hours generally declined for at least some time during the pandemic – and some physicians were furloughed – but most are now working about the same number of hours they did prior to COVID-19.
Cardiologists are back working an average of 57 hours per week. Perhaps not surprising, intensivists, infectious disease physicians, and public health/preventive medicine physicians are pulling longer hours now, about 6 or 7 more per week than before.
Although working about the same number of hours per week now as they did before the pandemic, physicians overall are typically seeing fewer patients because of time spent on medical office safety protocols, answering COVID-19–related questions and other factors.
Cardiologists are seeing an average decline in weekly patient visits of about 6% – from 77 to 72 patients. Pediatricians are experiencing the largest average declines – from 78 patients per week prior to 64 now, an 18% drop.
Among self-employed cardiologists, 43% believe that a drop in patient volume of up to one-quarter is permanent.
Most cardiologists remain happy at work
Despite COVID-19 and other professional challenges, most cardiologists (and physicians overall) continue to find their work rewarding.
Cardiologists say the most rewarding aspect of their profession is “being good at what I do/finding answers and diagnoses” (27%), followed by relationships with and gratitude from patients (26%), making the world a better place (23%) and making good money at a job they like (12%). A few cited pride in their profession (6%) and teaching (2%). These figures are in line with last year’s responses.
The most challenging part of practicing cardiology is having so many rules and regulations (22%), followed by having to work long hours (16%), working with electronic health records (13%), trouble getting fair reimbursement (11%), danger/risk associated with treating COVID-19 patients (11%), dealing with difficult patients (8%) and worry about being sued (7%).
Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, cardiologists spend 17.4 hours per week on paperwork and administration, similar to last year (16.9 hours per week) and to physicians overall (16.3 hours).
Despite the challenges, 86% of cardiologists said they would choose medicine again, and 92% would choose cardiology again, about the same as last year.
Most cardiologists (83%) plan to keep Medicare and/or Medicaid patients; only 1% say they won’t take new Medicare or Medicaid patients; and 16% are undecided.
Thirty-nine percent of cardiologists plan to participate in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) in 2021.
“The stakes of the Quality Payment Program – the program that incorporates MIPS – are high, with a 9% penalty applied to all Medicare reimbursement for failure to participate,” said Elizabeth Woodcock, MBA, CPC, president of physician practice consulting firm Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta.
“With margins already slim, most physicians can’t afford this massive penalty. It makes sense to protect your revenue by complying with at least the bare minimum,” she noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite the huge challenges of COVID-19, including a drop in patient visits, cardiologists reported an average increase in income in 2020 and remain among the top earners in medicine, according to the 2021 Medscape Cardiologist Compensation Report.
Although 46% of cardiologists reported some decline in compensation, average cardiologist income was $459,000 in 2020 – up from $438,000 in 2019.
Cardiologist pay is the third highest of all specialties in the overall 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report, which covers U.S. physicians as a whole and almost 18,000 physicians in 29 specialties.
Only plastic surgeons ($526,000) and orthopedists ($511,000) earned more than cardiologists in 2020.
On average among cardiologists, self-employment yields a somewhat higher paycheck than does being employed ($477,000 vs. $450,000).
Just like in last year’s report, nearly two-thirds (61%) of cardiologists overall say they feel fairly compensated.
The average incentive bonus payment for cardiologists in 2020 was 14% of total salary, about the same as last year. Two-thirds of cardiologists who earn an incentive bonus achieve more than three-quarters of their potential annual payment, up from 55% the prior year.
COVID challenges and the road back
The vast majority (92%) of cardiologists who saw a drop in income last year cited COVID-related issues such as job loss, working fewer hours, and seeing fewer patients.
Close to half (48%) of cardiologists who suffered financial or practice-related ill effects as a result of the pandemic expect their income to return to normal this year; 38% believe it will take 2 to 3 years. Notably, 45% of physicians overall said the pandemic did not cause them financial or practice-related harm.
Physician work hours generally declined for at least some time during the pandemic – and some physicians were furloughed – but most are now working about the same number of hours they did prior to COVID-19.
Cardiologists are back working an average of 57 hours per week. Perhaps not surprising, intensivists, infectious disease physicians, and public health/preventive medicine physicians are pulling longer hours now, about 6 or 7 more per week than before.
Although working about the same number of hours per week now as they did before the pandemic, physicians overall are typically seeing fewer patients because of time spent on medical office safety protocols, answering COVID-19–related questions and other factors.
Cardiologists are seeing an average decline in weekly patient visits of about 6% – from 77 to 72 patients. Pediatricians are experiencing the largest average declines – from 78 patients per week prior to 64 now, an 18% drop.
Among self-employed cardiologists, 43% believe that a drop in patient volume of up to one-quarter is permanent.
Most cardiologists remain happy at work
Despite COVID-19 and other professional challenges, most cardiologists (and physicians overall) continue to find their work rewarding.
Cardiologists say the most rewarding aspect of their profession is “being good at what I do/finding answers and diagnoses” (27%), followed by relationships with and gratitude from patients (26%), making the world a better place (23%) and making good money at a job they like (12%). A few cited pride in their profession (6%) and teaching (2%). These figures are in line with last year’s responses.
The most challenging part of practicing cardiology is having so many rules and regulations (22%), followed by having to work long hours (16%), working with electronic health records (13%), trouble getting fair reimbursement (11%), danger/risk associated with treating COVID-19 patients (11%), dealing with difficult patients (8%) and worry about being sued (7%).
Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, cardiologists spend 17.4 hours per week on paperwork and administration, similar to last year (16.9 hours per week) and to physicians overall (16.3 hours).
Despite the challenges, 86% of cardiologists said they would choose medicine again, and 92% would choose cardiology again, about the same as last year.
Most cardiologists (83%) plan to keep Medicare and/or Medicaid patients; only 1% say they won’t take new Medicare or Medicaid patients; and 16% are undecided.
Thirty-nine percent of cardiologists plan to participate in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) in 2021.
“The stakes of the Quality Payment Program – the program that incorporates MIPS – are high, with a 9% penalty applied to all Medicare reimbursement for failure to participate,” said Elizabeth Woodcock, MBA, CPC, president of physician practice consulting firm Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta.
“With margins already slim, most physicians can’t afford this massive penalty. It makes sense to protect your revenue by complying with at least the bare minimum,” she noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite the huge challenges of COVID-19, including a drop in patient visits, cardiologists reported an average increase in income in 2020 and remain among the top earners in medicine, according to the 2021 Medscape Cardiologist Compensation Report.
Although 46% of cardiologists reported some decline in compensation, average cardiologist income was $459,000 in 2020 – up from $438,000 in 2019.
Cardiologist pay is the third highest of all specialties in the overall 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report, which covers U.S. physicians as a whole and almost 18,000 physicians in 29 specialties.
Only plastic surgeons ($526,000) and orthopedists ($511,000) earned more than cardiologists in 2020.
On average among cardiologists, self-employment yields a somewhat higher paycheck than does being employed ($477,000 vs. $450,000).
Just like in last year’s report, nearly two-thirds (61%) of cardiologists overall say they feel fairly compensated.
The average incentive bonus payment for cardiologists in 2020 was 14% of total salary, about the same as last year. Two-thirds of cardiologists who earn an incentive bonus achieve more than three-quarters of their potential annual payment, up from 55% the prior year.
COVID challenges and the road back
The vast majority (92%) of cardiologists who saw a drop in income last year cited COVID-related issues such as job loss, working fewer hours, and seeing fewer patients.
Close to half (48%) of cardiologists who suffered financial or practice-related ill effects as a result of the pandemic expect their income to return to normal this year; 38% believe it will take 2 to 3 years. Notably, 45% of physicians overall said the pandemic did not cause them financial or practice-related harm.
Physician work hours generally declined for at least some time during the pandemic – and some physicians were furloughed – but most are now working about the same number of hours they did prior to COVID-19.
Cardiologists are back working an average of 57 hours per week. Perhaps not surprising, intensivists, infectious disease physicians, and public health/preventive medicine physicians are pulling longer hours now, about 6 or 7 more per week than before.
Although working about the same number of hours per week now as they did before the pandemic, physicians overall are typically seeing fewer patients because of time spent on medical office safety protocols, answering COVID-19–related questions and other factors.
Cardiologists are seeing an average decline in weekly patient visits of about 6% – from 77 to 72 patients. Pediatricians are experiencing the largest average declines – from 78 patients per week prior to 64 now, an 18% drop.
Among self-employed cardiologists, 43% believe that a drop in patient volume of up to one-quarter is permanent.
Most cardiologists remain happy at work
Despite COVID-19 and other professional challenges, most cardiologists (and physicians overall) continue to find their work rewarding.
Cardiologists say the most rewarding aspect of their profession is “being good at what I do/finding answers and diagnoses” (27%), followed by relationships with and gratitude from patients (26%), making the world a better place (23%) and making good money at a job they like (12%). A few cited pride in their profession (6%) and teaching (2%). These figures are in line with last year’s responses.
The most challenging part of practicing cardiology is having so many rules and regulations (22%), followed by having to work long hours (16%), working with electronic health records (13%), trouble getting fair reimbursement (11%), danger/risk associated with treating COVID-19 patients (11%), dealing with difficult patients (8%) and worry about being sued (7%).
Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, cardiologists spend 17.4 hours per week on paperwork and administration, similar to last year (16.9 hours per week) and to physicians overall (16.3 hours).
Despite the challenges, 86% of cardiologists said they would choose medicine again, and 92% would choose cardiology again, about the same as last year.
Most cardiologists (83%) plan to keep Medicare and/or Medicaid patients; only 1% say they won’t take new Medicare or Medicaid patients; and 16% are undecided.
Thirty-nine percent of cardiologists plan to participate in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) in 2021.
“The stakes of the Quality Payment Program – the program that incorporates MIPS – are high, with a 9% penalty applied to all Medicare reimbursement for failure to participate,” said Elizabeth Woodcock, MBA, CPC, president of physician practice consulting firm Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta.
“With margins already slim, most physicians can’t afford this massive penalty. It makes sense to protect your revenue by complying with at least the bare minimum,” she noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The end of happy hour? No safe level of alcohol for the brain
There is no safe amount of alcohol consumption for the brain; even moderate drinking adversely affects brain structure and function, according a British study of more 25,000 adults.
“This is one of the largest studies of alcohol and brain health to date,” Anya Topiwala, DPhil, University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.
“There have been previous claims the relationship between alcohol and brain health are J-shaped (ie., small amounts are protective), but we formally tested this and did not find it to be the case. In fact, we found that any level of alcohol was associated with poorer brain health, compared to no alcohol,” Dr. Topiwala added.
The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, was published online May 12 in MedRxiv.
Global impact on the brain
Participants provided detailed information on their alcohol intake. The cohort included 691 never-drinkers, 617 former drinkers, and 24,069 current drinkers.
Median alcohol intake was 13.5 units (102 g) weekly. Almost half of the sample (48.2%) were drinking above current UK low-risk guidelines (14 units, 112 g weekly), but few were heavy drinkers (>50 units, 400 g weekly).
After adjusting for all known potential confounders and multiple comparisons, a higher volume of alcohol consumed per week was associated with lower gray matter in “almost all areas of the brain,” Dr. Topiwala said in an interview.
Alcohol consumption accounted for up to 0.8% of gray matter volume variance. “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor. These brain changes have been previously linked to aging, poorer performance on memory changes, and dementia,” Dr. Topiwala said.
Widespread negative associations were also found between drinking alcohol and all the measures of white matter integrity that were assessed. There was a significant positive association between alcohol consumption and resting-state functional connectivity.
Higher blood pressure and body mass index “steepened” the negative associations between alcohol and brain health, and binge drinking had additive negative effects on brain structure beyond the absolute volume consumed.
There was no evidence that the risk for alcohol-related brain harm differs according to the type of alcohol consumed (wine, beer, or spirits).
A key limitation of the study is that the study population from the UK Biobank represents a sample that is healthier, better educated, and less deprived and is characterized by less ethnic diversity than the general population. “As with any observational study, we cannot infer causality from association,” the authors note.
What remains unclear, they say, is the duration of drinking needed to cause an effect on the brain. It may be that vulnerability is increased during periods of life in which dynamic brain changes occur, such as adolescence and older age.
They also note that some studies of alcohol-dependent individuals have suggested that at least some brain damage is reversible upon abstinence. Whether that is true for moderate drinkers is unknown.
On the basis of their findings, there is “no safe dose of alcohol for the brain,” Dr. Topiwala and colleagues conclude. They suggest that current low-risk drinking guidelines be revisited to take account of brain effects.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Center.
Paul Matthews, MD, head of the department of brain sciences, Imperial College London, noted that this “carefully performed preliminary report extends our earlier UK Dementia Research Institute study of a smaller group from same UK Biobank population also showing that even moderate drinking is associated with greater atrophy of the brain, as well as injury to the heart and liver.”
Dr. Matthews said the investigators’ conclusion that there is no safe threshold below which alcohol consumption has no toxic effects “echoes our own. We join with them in suggesting that current public health guidelines concerning alcohol consumption may need to be revisited.”
Rebecca Dewey, PhD, research fellow in neuroimaging, University of Nottingham (England), cautioned that “the degree to which very small changes in brain volume are harmful” is unknown.
“While there was no threshold under which alcohol consumption did not cause changes in the brain, there may a degree of brain volume difference that is irrelevant to brain health. We don’t know what these people’s brains looked like before they drank alcohol, so the brain may have learned to cope/compensate,” Dewey said.
Sadie Boniface, PhD, head of research at the Institute of Alcohol Studies and visiting researcher at King’s College London, said, “While we can’t yet say for sure whether there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol regarding brain health at the moment, it has been known for decades that heavy drinking is bad for brain health.
“We also shouldn’t forget alcohol affects all parts of the body and there are multiple health risks. For example, it is already known there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol consumption for the seven types of cancer caused by alcohol, as identified by the UK chief medical officers,” Dr. Boniface said.
The study was supported in part by the Wellcome Trust, Li Ka Shing Center for Health Information and Discovery, the National Institutes of Health, and the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Topiwala, Dr. Boniface, Dr. Dewey, and Dr. Matthews have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is no safe amount of alcohol consumption for the brain; even moderate drinking adversely affects brain structure and function, according a British study of more 25,000 adults.
“This is one of the largest studies of alcohol and brain health to date,” Anya Topiwala, DPhil, University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.
“There have been previous claims the relationship between alcohol and brain health are J-shaped (ie., small amounts are protective), but we formally tested this and did not find it to be the case. In fact, we found that any level of alcohol was associated with poorer brain health, compared to no alcohol,” Dr. Topiwala added.
The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, was published online May 12 in MedRxiv.
Global impact on the brain
Participants provided detailed information on their alcohol intake. The cohort included 691 never-drinkers, 617 former drinkers, and 24,069 current drinkers.
Median alcohol intake was 13.5 units (102 g) weekly. Almost half of the sample (48.2%) were drinking above current UK low-risk guidelines (14 units, 112 g weekly), but few were heavy drinkers (>50 units, 400 g weekly).
After adjusting for all known potential confounders and multiple comparisons, a higher volume of alcohol consumed per week was associated with lower gray matter in “almost all areas of the brain,” Dr. Topiwala said in an interview.
Alcohol consumption accounted for up to 0.8% of gray matter volume variance. “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor. These brain changes have been previously linked to aging, poorer performance on memory changes, and dementia,” Dr. Topiwala said.
Widespread negative associations were also found between drinking alcohol and all the measures of white matter integrity that were assessed. There was a significant positive association between alcohol consumption and resting-state functional connectivity.
Higher blood pressure and body mass index “steepened” the negative associations between alcohol and brain health, and binge drinking had additive negative effects on brain structure beyond the absolute volume consumed.
There was no evidence that the risk for alcohol-related brain harm differs according to the type of alcohol consumed (wine, beer, or spirits).
A key limitation of the study is that the study population from the UK Biobank represents a sample that is healthier, better educated, and less deprived and is characterized by less ethnic diversity than the general population. “As with any observational study, we cannot infer causality from association,” the authors note.
What remains unclear, they say, is the duration of drinking needed to cause an effect on the brain. It may be that vulnerability is increased during periods of life in which dynamic brain changes occur, such as adolescence and older age.
They also note that some studies of alcohol-dependent individuals have suggested that at least some brain damage is reversible upon abstinence. Whether that is true for moderate drinkers is unknown.
On the basis of their findings, there is “no safe dose of alcohol for the brain,” Dr. Topiwala and colleagues conclude. They suggest that current low-risk drinking guidelines be revisited to take account of brain effects.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Center.
Paul Matthews, MD, head of the department of brain sciences, Imperial College London, noted that this “carefully performed preliminary report extends our earlier UK Dementia Research Institute study of a smaller group from same UK Biobank population also showing that even moderate drinking is associated with greater atrophy of the brain, as well as injury to the heart and liver.”
Dr. Matthews said the investigators’ conclusion that there is no safe threshold below which alcohol consumption has no toxic effects “echoes our own. We join with them in suggesting that current public health guidelines concerning alcohol consumption may need to be revisited.”
Rebecca Dewey, PhD, research fellow in neuroimaging, University of Nottingham (England), cautioned that “the degree to which very small changes in brain volume are harmful” is unknown.
“While there was no threshold under which alcohol consumption did not cause changes in the brain, there may a degree of brain volume difference that is irrelevant to brain health. We don’t know what these people’s brains looked like before they drank alcohol, so the brain may have learned to cope/compensate,” Dewey said.
Sadie Boniface, PhD, head of research at the Institute of Alcohol Studies and visiting researcher at King’s College London, said, “While we can’t yet say for sure whether there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol regarding brain health at the moment, it has been known for decades that heavy drinking is bad for brain health.
“We also shouldn’t forget alcohol affects all parts of the body and there are multiple health risks. For example, it is already known there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol consumption for the seven types of cancer caused by alcohol, as identified by the UK chief medical officers,” Dr. Boniface said.
The study was supported in part by the Wellcome Trust, Li Ka Shing Center for Health Information and Discovery, the National Institutes of Health, and the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Topiwala, Dr. Boniface, Dr. Dewey, and Dr. Matthews have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is no safe amount of alcohol consumption for the brain; even moderate drinking adversely affects brain structure and function, according a British study of more 25,000 adults.
“This is one of the largest studies of alcohol and brain health to date,” Anya Topiwala, DPhil, University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.
“There have been previous claims the relationship between alcohol and brain health are J-shaped (ie., small amounts are protective), but we formally tested this and did not find it to be the case. In fact, we found that any level of alcohol was associated with poorer brain health, compared to no alcohol,” Dr. Topiwala added.
The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, was published online May 12 in MedRxiv.
Global impact on the brain
Participants provided detailed information on their alcohol intake. The cohort included 691 never-drinkers, 617 former drinkers, and 24,069 current drinkers.
Median alcohol intake was 13.5 units (102 g) weekly. Almost half of the sample (48.2%) were drinking above current UK low-risk guidelines (14 units, 112 g weekly), but few were heavy drinkers (>50 units, 400 g weekly).
After adjusting for all known potential confounders and multiple comparisons, a higher volume of alcohol consumed per week was associated with lower gray matter in “almost all areas of the brain,” Dr. Topiwala said in an interview.
Alcohol consumption accounted for up to 0.8% of gray matter volume variance. “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor. These brain changes have been previously linked to aging, poorer performance on memory changes, and dementia,” Dr. Topiwala said.
Widespread negative associations were also found between drinking alcohol and all the measures of white matter integrity that were assessed. There was a significant positive association between alcohol consumption and resting-state functional connectivity.
Higher blood pressure and body mass index “steepened” the negative associations between alcohol and brain health, and binge drinking had additive negative effects on brain structure beyond the absolute volume consumed.
There was no evidence that the risk for alcohol-related brain harm differs according to the type of alcohol consumed (wine, beer, or spirits).
A key limitation of the study is that the study population from the UK Biobank represents a sample that is healthier, better educated, and less deprived and is characterized by less ethnic diversity than the general population. “As with any observational study, we cannot infer causality from association,” the authors note.
What remains unclear, they say, is the duration of drinking needed to cause an effect on the brain. It may be that vulnerability is increased during periods of life in which dynamic brain changes occur, such as adolescence and older age.
They also note that some studies of alcohol-dependent individuals have suggested that at least some brain damage is reversible upon abstinence. Whether that is true for moderate drinkers is unknown.
On the basis of their findings, there is “no safe dose of alcohol for the brain,” Dr. Topiwala and colleagues conclude. They suggest that current low-risk drinking guidelines be revisited to take account of brain effects.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Center.
Paul Matthews, MD, head of the department of brain sciences, Imperial College London, noted that this “carefully performed preliminary report extends our earlier UK Dementia Research Institute study of a smaller group from same UK Biobank population also showing that even moderate drinking is associated with greater atrophy of the brain, as well as injury to the heart and liver.”
Dr. Matthews said the investigators’ conclusion that there is no safe threshold below which alcohol consumption has no toxic effects “echoes our own. We join with them in suggesting that current public health guidelines concerning alcohol consumption may need to be revisited.”
Rebecca Dewey, PhD, research fellow in neuroimaging, University of Nottingham (England), cautioned that “the degree to which very small changes in brain volume are harmful” is unknown.
“While there was no threshold under which alcohol consumption did not cause changes in the brain, there may a degree of brain volume difference that is irrelevant to brain health. We don’t know what these people’s brains looked like before they drank alcohol, so the brain may have learned to cope/compensate,” Dewey said.
Sadie Boniface, PhD, head of research at the Institute of Alcohol Studies and visiting researcher at King’s College London, said, “While we can’t yet say for sure whether there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol regarding brain health at the moment, it has been known for decades that heavy drinking is bad for brain health.
“We also shouldn’t forget alcohol affects all parts of the body and there are multiple health risks. For example, it is already known there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol consumption for the seven types of cancer caused by alcohol, as identified by the UK chief medical officers,” Dr. Boniface said.
The study was supported in part by the Wellcome Trust, Li Ka Shing Center for Health Information and Discovery, the National Institutes of Health, and the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Topiwala, Dr. Boniface, Dr. Dewey, and Dr. Matthews have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.