User login
FDA warns of higher death risk with Pepaxto in multiple myeloma
participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.
The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.
As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.
Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.
The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.
Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”
The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
Accelerated approval data
Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.
Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.
Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
Confirmatory trial data
The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.
The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.
“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.
The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.
Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.
The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.
As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.
Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.
The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.
Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”
The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
Accelerated approval data
Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.
Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.
Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
Confirmatory trial data
The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.
The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.
“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.
The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.
Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.
The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.
As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.
Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.
The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.
Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”
The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
Accelerated approval data
Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.
Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.
Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
Confirmatory trial data
The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.
The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.
“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.
The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.
Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Coffee and the brain: ‘Concerning’ new data
according to the results of a large study.
“With coffee intake, moderation is the key, and especially high levels of consumption may have adverse long-term effects on the brain,” said study investigator Elina Hypponen, PhD, professor of nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Center for Precision Health at the University of South Australia.
“These new data are concerning, and there is a need to conduct further carefully controlled studies to clarify the effects of coffee on the brain.”
The study was published online June 24 in Nutritional Neuroscience.
Potent stimulant
Coffee is a potent nervous system stimulant and is among the most popular nonalcoholic beverages. Some previous research suggests it benefits the brain, but the investigators noted that other research shows a negative or U-shaped relationship.
To investigate, the researchers examined data from the U.K. Biobank, a long-term prospective epidemiologic study of more than 500,000 participants aged 37-73 years who were recruited in 22 assessment centers in the United Kingdom between March 2006 and October 2010.
During the baseline assessment, information was gathered using touchscreen questionnaires, verbal interviews, and physical examinations that involved collection of blood, urine, and saliva samples. An imaging substudy was incorporated in 2014, the goal of which was to conduct brain, heart, and body MRI imaging for 100,000 participants.
The investigators conducted analyses on disease outcomes for 398,646 participants for whom information on habitual coffee consumption was available. Brain volume analyses were conducted in 17,702 participants for whom valid brain imaging data were available.
Participants reported coffee intake in cups per day. Researchers grouped coffee consumption into seven categories: nondrinkers, decaffeinated coffee drinkers, and caffeinated coffee drinkers who consumed less than 1 cup/d, 1-2 cups/d, 3-4 cups/d, 5-6 cups/d, and more than 6 cups/d.
The reference category was those who consumed 1-2 cups/d, rather than those who abstained from coffee, because persons who abstain are more likely to be at suboptimal health.
“Comparing the health of coffee drinkers to the health of those choosing to abstain from coffee will typically lead to an impression of a health benefit, even if there would not be one,” said Dr. Hypponen.
The researchers obtained total and regional brain volumes from the MRI imaging substudy starting 4-6 years after baseline assessment. They accessed information on incident dementia and stroke using primary care data, hospital admission electronic health records, national death registers, and self-reported medical conditions.
Covariates included socioeconomic, health, and other factors, such as smoking, alcohol and tea consumption, physical activity, stressful life events, and body mass index.
The investigators found that there was a linear inverse association between coffee consumption and total brain volume (fully adjusted beta per cup, –1.42; 95% confidence interval, –1.89 to –0.94), with consistent patterns for gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes.
There was no evidence to support an association with white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume (beta –0.01; 95% CI, –0.07 to 0.05).
Higher consumption, higher risk
The analysis also revealed a nonlinear association between coffee consumption and the odds of dementia (P nonlinearity = .0001), with slightly higher odds seen with non–coffee drinkers and decaffeinated-coffee drinkers and more notable increases for participants in the highest categories of coffee consumption compared with light coffee drinkers.
After adjustment for all covariates, the odds ratio of dementia among persons in the category of coffee intake was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.28-1.83). After full adjustments, the association with heavy coffee consumption and stroke was not significant, although “we can’t exclude a weak effect,” said Dr. Hypponen.
“For the highest coffee consumption group, the data support an association which may be anywhere from 0% to 37% higher odds of stroke after full adjustment,” she added.
People at risk for hypertension may develop “unpleasant sensations” and stop drinking coffee before a serious adverse event occurs, said Dr. Hypponen. In a previous study, she and her colleagues showed that those who have genetically higher blood pressure tend to drink less coffee than their counterparts without the condition.
“This type of effect might be expected to naturally limit the adverse effects of coffee on the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Hypponen.
The odds remained elevated for participants drinking more than 6 cups/d after the researchers accounted for sleep quality. There were no differences in risk between men and women or by age.
An examination of the consumption of tea, which often contains caffeine, did not show an association with brain volume or the odds of dementia or stroke.
“We don’t know whether the difference between associations seen for coffee and tea intake reflects the difference in related caffeine intake or some other explanation, such as dehydration or effects operating through blood cholesterol,” said Dr. Hypponen.
Although reverse causation is possible, there’s no reason to believe that it is relevant to the study results. Genetic evidence suggests a causal role of higher coffee intake on risk for Alzheimer’s disease. In addition, results of a clinical trial support the association between higher caffeine intake and smaller gray matter volume, said Dr. Hypponen.
The mechanisms linking coffee consumption to brain volumes and dementia are not well established. However, Dr. Hypponen noted that caffeine has been used to induce apoptosis in cancer studies using glial cells.
“Furthermore, adenosine receptors, which mediate many of the effects of caffeine in the brain, have been suggested to influence the release of growth factors, which in turn can have an influence on astrocyte proliferation and angiogenesis in the brain,” she said.
Some types of coffee contain cafestol, which increases blood cholesterol and can have adverse effects though related mechanisms, said Dr. Hypponen.
The mechanism may also involve dehydration, which may have a harmful effect on the brain. The study suggested a correlation between dehydration and high coffee intake. “Of course, if this is the case, it is good news, as then we can do something about it simply by drinking some water every time we have a cup of coffee,” she said.
Misleading conclusions
Coffee contains antioxidants, and although previous studies have suggested it might be beneficial, this hypothesis is “too simplistic,” said Dr. Hypponen. “While coffee is not going to be all ‘bad’ either, there are a lot of controversies and suggestions about beneficial effects of coffee which may not be true, or at least do not reflect the full story.”
If the drinking of coffee is at least partly determined by an individual’s health status, then that would often lead to misleading conclusions in observational studies, said Dr. Hypponen.
“When one uses as a comparison people who already have poor health and who do not drink coffee because of that, coffee intake will by default appear beneficial simply because there are more people with disease among those choosing abstinence,” she said.
Before now, there was “very little evidence about the association between coffee intake and brain morphology,” and the studies that were conducted were relatively small, said Dr. Hypponen.
One of these smaller studies included a group of women aged 13-30 years. It found that coffee consumption was not associated with total brain volumes, but the findings suggested a U-shaped association with hippocampal volume; higher values were seen both for nondrinkers and the groups with higher consumption.
A small study of elderly patients with diabetes showed no evidence of an association with white matter volume, but there was a possible age-dependent association with gray matter volume.
The largest of the earlier studies had results that were very similar to those of the current study, suggesting that increasing coffee intake is associated with smaller hippocampal volumes, said Dr. Hypponen.
One of the study’s limitations included the fact that full dietary information was available only for a subsample and that factors such as dehydration were measured at baseline rather than at the time of brain MRI.
Another possible study limitation was the use of self-reported data and the fact that lifestyle changes may have occurred between baseline and MRI or covariate measurement.
In addition, the study is subject to a healthy-volunteer bias, and its implications are restricted to White British persons. The association needs to be studied in other ethnic populations, the authors noted.
A reason to cut back?
Commenting on the findings, Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the study is large and quite well done.
“It does raise questions about an increase in risk of dementia with six or more cups of coffee per day,” said Dr. Willett. “At the same time, it provides reassurance about lack of adverse effects of coffee for those consuming three or four cups per day, and little increase in risk, if any, with five cups per day.”
It’s not entirely clear whether the increase in risk with six or more cups of coffee per day represents a “true effect” of coffee, inasmuch as the study did not seem to adjust fully for dietary factors, high consumption of alcohol, or past smoking, said Dr. Willett.
The findings don’t suggest that coffee lovers should give up their Java. “But six or more cups per day is a lot, and those who drink that much might consider cutting back a bit while research continues,” said Dr. Willett.
The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the results of a large study.
“With coffee intake, moderation is the key, and especially high levels of consumption may have adverse long-term effects on the brain,” said study investigator Elina Hypponen, PhD, professor of nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Center for Precision Health at the University of South Australia.
“These new data are concerning, and there is a need to conduct further carefully controlled studies to clarify the effects of coffee on the brain.”
The study was published online June 24 in Nutritional Neuroscience.
Potent stimulant
Coffee is a potent nervous system stimulant and is among the most popular nonalcoholic beverages. Some previous research suggests it benefits the brain, but the investigators noted that other research shows a negative or U-shaped relationship.
To investigate, the researchers examined data from the U.K. Biobank, a long-term prospective epidemiologic study of more than 500,000 participants aged 37-73 years who were recruited in 22 assessment centers in the United Kingdom between March 2006 and October 2010.
During the baseline assessment, information was gathered using touchscreen questionnaires, verbal interviews, and physical examinations that involved collection of blood, urine, and saliva samples. An imaging substudy was incorporated in 2014, the goal of which was to conduct brain, heart, and body MRI imaging for 100,000 participants.
The investigators conducted analyses on disease outcomes for 398,646 participants for whom information on habitual coffee consumption was available. Brain volume analyses were conducted in 17,702 participants for whom valid brain imaging data were available.
Participants reported coffee intake in cups per day. Researchers grouped coffee consumption into seven categories: nondrinkers, decaffeinated coffee drinkers, and caffeinated coffee drinkers who consumed less than 1 cup/d, 1-2 cups/d, 3-4 cups/d, 5-6 cups/d, and more than 6 cups/d.
The reference category was those who consumed 1-2 cups/d, rather than those who abstained from coffee, because persons who abstain are more likely to be at suboptimal health.
“Comparing the health of coffee drinkers to the health of those choosing to abstain from coffee will typically lead to an impression of a health benefit, even if there would not be one,” said Dr. Hypponen.
The researchers obtained total and regional brain volumes from the MRI imaging substudy starting 4-6 years after baseline assessment. They accessed information on incident dementia and stroke using primary care data, hospital admission electronic health records, national death registers, and self-reported medical conditions.
Covariates included socioeconomic, health, and other factors, such as smoking, alcohol and tea consumption, physical activity, stressful life events, and body mass index.
The investigators found that there was a linear inverse association between coffee consumption and total brain volume (fully adjusted beta per cup, –1.42; 95% confidence interval, –1.89 to –0.94), with consistent patterns for gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes.
There was no evidence to support an association with white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume (beta –0.01; 95% CI, –0.07 to 0.05).
Higher consumption, higher risk
The analysis also revealed a nonlinear association between coffee consumption and the odds of dementia (P nonlinearity = .0001), with slightly higher odds seen with non–coffee drinkers and decaffeinated-coffee drinkers and more notable increases for participants in the highest categories of coffee consumption compared with light coffee drinkers.
After adjustment for all covariates, the odds ratio of dementia among persons in the category of coffee intake was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.28-1.83). After full adjustments, the association with heavy coffee consumption and stroke was not significant, although “we can’t exclude a weak effect,” said Dr. Hypponen.
“For the highest coffee consumption group, the data support an association which may be anywhere from 0% to 37% higher odds of stroke after full adjustment,” she added.
People at risk for hypertension may develop “unpleasant sensations” and stop drinking coffee before a serious adverse event occurs, said Dr. Hypponen. In a previous study, she and her colleagues showed that those who have genetically higher blood pressure tend to drink less coffee than their counterparts without the condition.
“This type of effect might be expected to naturally limit the adverse effects of coffee on the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Hypponen.
The odds remained elevated for participants drinking more than 6 cups/d after the researchers accounted for sleep quality. There were no differences in risk between men and women or by age.
An examination of the consumption of tea, which often contains caffeine, did not show an association with brain volume or the odds of dementia or stroke.
“We don’t know whether the difference between associations seen for coffee and tea intake reflects the difference in related caffeine intake or some other explanation, such as dehydration or effects operating through blood cholesterol,” said Dr. Hypponen.
Although reverse causation is possible, there’s no reason to believe that it is relevant to the study results. Genetic evidence suggests a causal role of higher coffee intake on risk for Alzheimer’s disease. In addition, results of a clinical trial support the association between higher caffeine intake and smaller gray matter volume, said Dr. Hypponen.
The mechanisms linking coffee consumption to brain volumes and dementia are not well established. However, Dr. Hypponen noted that caffeine has been used to induce apoptosis in cancer studies using glial cells.
“Furthermore, adenosine receptors, which mediate many of the effects of caffeine in the brain, have been suggested to influence the release of growth factors, which in turn can have an influence on astrocyte proliferation and angiogenesis in the brain,” she said.
Some types of coffee contain cafestol, which increases blood cholesterol and can have adverse effects though related mechanisms, said Dr. Hypponen.
The mechanism may also involve dehydration, which may have a harmful effect on the brain. The study suggested a correlation between dehydration and high coffee intake. “Of course, if this is the case, it is good news, as then we can do something about it simply by drinking some water every time we have a cup of coffee,” she said.
Misleading conclusions
Coffee contains antioxidants, and although previous studies have suggested it might be beneficial, this hypothesis is “too simplistic,” said Dr. Hypponen. “While coffee is not going to be all ‘bad’ either, there are a lot of controversies and suggestions about beneficial effects of coffee which may not be true, or at least do not reflect the full story.”
If the drinking of coffee is at least partly determined by an individual’s health status, then that would often lead to misleading conclusions in observational studies, said Dr. Hypponen.
“When one uses as a comparison people who already have poor health and who do not drink coffee because of that, coffee intake will by default appear beneficial simply because there are more people with disease among those choosing abstinence,” she said.
Before now, there was “very little evidence about the association between coffee intake and brain morphology,” and the studies that were conducted were relatively small, said Dr. Hypponen.
One of these smaller studies included a group of women aged 13-30 years. It found that coffee consumption was not associated with total brain volumes, but the findings suggested a U-shaped association with hippocampal volume; higher values were seen both for nondrinkers and the groups with higher consumption.
A small study of elderly patients with diabetes showed no evidence of an association with white matter volume, but there was a possible age-dependent association with gray matter volume.
The largest of the earlier studies had results that were very similar to those of the current study, suggesting that increasing coffee intake is associated with smaller hippocampal volumes, said Dr. Hypponen.
One of the study’s limitations included the fact that full dietary information was available only for a subsample and that factors such as dehydration were measured at baseline rather than at the time of brain MRI.
Another possible study limitation was the use of self-reported data and the fact that lifestyle changes may have occurred between baseline and MRI or covariate measurement.
In addition, the study is subject to a healthy-volunteer bias, and its implications are restricted to White British persons. The association needs to be studied in other ethnic populations, the authors noted.
A reason to cut back?
Commenting on the findings, Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the study is large and quite well done.
“It does raise questions about an increase in risk of dementia with six or more cups of coffee per day,” said Dr. Willett. “At the same time, it provides reassurance about lack of adverse effects of coffee for those consuming three or four cups per day, and little increase in risk, if any, with five cups per day.”
It’s not entirely clear whether the increase in risk with six or more cups of coffee per day represents a “true effect” of coffee, inasmuch as the study did not seem to adjust fully for dietary factors, high consumption of alcohol, or past smoking, said Dr. Willett.
The findings don’t suggest that coffee lovers should give up their Java. “But six or more cups per day is a lot, and those who drink that much might consider cutting back a bit while research continues,” said Dr. Willett.
The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the results of a large study.
“With coffee intake, moderation is the key, and especially high levels of consumption may have adverse long-term effects on the brain,” said study investigator Elina Hypponen, PhD, professor of nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Center for Precision Health at the University of South Australia.
“These new data are concerning, and there is a need to conduct further carefully controlled studies to clarify the effects of coffee on the brain.”
The study was published online June 24 in Nutritional Neuroscience.
Potent stimulant
Coffee is a potent nervous system stimulant and is among the most popular nonalcoholic beverages. Some previous research suggests it benefits the brain, but the investigators noted that other research shows a negative or U-shaped relationship.
To investigate, the researchers examined data from the U.K. Biobank, a long-term prospective epidemiologic study of more than 500,000 participants aged 37-73 years who were recruited in 22 assessment centers in the United Kingdom between March 2006 and October 2010.
During the baseline assessment, information was gathered using touchscreen questionnaires, verbal interviews, and physical examinations that involved collection of blood, urine, and saliva samples. An imaging substudy was incorporated in 2014, the goal of which was to conduct brain, heart, and body MRI imaging for 100,000 participants.
The investigators conducted analyses on disease outcomes for 398,646 participants for whom information on habitual coffee consumption was available. Brain volume analyses were conducted in 17,702 participants for whom valid brain imaging data were available.
Participants reported coffee intake in cups per day. Researchers grouped coffee consumption into seven categories: nondrinkers, decaffeinated coffee drinkers, and caffeinated coffee drinkers who consumed less than 1 cup/d, 1-2 cups/d, 3-4 cups/d, 5-6 cups/d, and more than 6 cups/d.
The reference category was those who consumed 1-2 cups/d, rather than those who abstained from coffee, because persons who abstain are more likely to be at suboptimal health.
“Comparing the health of coffee drinkers to the health of those choosing to abstain from coffee will typically lead to an impression of a health benefit, even if there would not be one,” said Dr. Hypponen.
The researchers obtained total and regional brain volumes from the MRI imaging substudy starting 4-6 years after baseline assessment. They accessed information on incident dementia and stroke using primary care data, hospital admission electronic health records, national death registers, and self-reported medical conditions.
Covariates included socioeconomic, health, and other factors, such as smoking, alcohol and tea consumption, physical activity, stressful life events, and body mass index.
The investigators found that there was a linear inverse association between coffee consumption and total brain volume (fully adjusted beta per cup, –1.42; 95% confidence interval, –1.89 to –0.94), with consistent patterns for gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes.
There was no evidence to support an association with white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume (beta –0.01; 95% CI, –0.07 to 0.05).
Higher consumption, higher risk
The analysis also revealed a nonlinear association between coffee consumption and the odds of dementia (P nonlinearity = .0001), with slightly higher odds seen with non–coffee drinkers and decaffeinated-coffee drinkers and more notable increases for participants in the highest categories of coffee consumption compared with light coffee drinkers.
After adjustment for all covariates, the odds ratio of dementia among persons in the category of coffee intake was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.28-1.83). After full adjustments, the association with heavy coffee consumption and stroke was not significant, although “we can’t exclude a weak effect,” said Dr. Hypponen.
“For the highest coffee consumption group, the data support an association which may be anywhere from 0% to 37% higher odds of stroke after full adjustment,” she added.
People at risk for hypertension may develop “unpleasant sensations” and stop drinking coffee before a serious adverse event occurs, said Dr. Hypponen. In a previous study, she and her colleagues showed that those who have genetically higher blood pressure tend to drink less coffee than their counterparts without the condition.
“This type of effect might be expected to naturally limit the adverse effects of coffee on the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Hypponen.
The odds remained elevated for participants drinking more than 6 cups/d after the researchers accounted for sleep quality. There were no differences in risk between men and women or by age.
An examination of the consumption of tea, which often contains caffeine, did not show an association with brain volume or the odds of dementia or stroke.
“We don’t know whether the difference between associations seen for coffee and tea intake reflects the difference in related caffeine intake or some other explanation, such as dehydration or effects operating through blood cholesterol,” said Dr. Hypponen.
Although reverse causation is possible, there’s no reason to believe that it is relevant to the study results. Genetic evidence suggests a causal role of higher coffee intake on risk for Alzheimer’s disease. In addition, results of a clinical trial support the association between higher caffeine intake and smaller gray matter volume, said Dr. Hypponen.
The mechanisms linking coffee consumption to brain volumes and dementia are not well established. However, Dr. Hypponen noted that caffeine has been used to induce apoptosis in cancer studies using glial cells.
“Furthermore, adenosine receptors, which mediate many of the effects of caffeine in the brain, have been suggested to influence the release of growth factors, which in turn can have an influence on astrocyte proliferation and angiogenesis in the brain,” she said.
Some types of coffee contain cafestol, which increases blood cholesterol and can have adverse effects though related mechanisms, said Dr. Hypponen.
The mechanism may also involve dehydration, which may have a harmful effect on the brain. The study suggested a correlation between dehydration and high coffee intake. “Of course, if this is the case, it is good news, as then we can do something about it simply by drinking some water every time we have a cup of coffee,” she said.
Misleading conclusions
Coffee contains antioxidants, and although previous studies have suggested it might be beneficial, this hypothesis is “too simplistic,” said Dr. Hypponen. “While coffee is not going to be all ‘bad’ either, there are a lot of controversies and suggestions about beneficial effects of coffee which may not be true, or at least do not reflect the full story.”
If the drinking of coffee is at least partly determined by an individual’s health status, then that would often lead to misleading conclusions in observational studies, said Dr. Hypponen.
“When one uses as a comparison people who already have poor health and who do not drink coffee because of that, coffee intake will by default appear beneficial simply because there are more people with disease among those choosing abstinence,” she said.
Before now, there was “very little evidence about the association between coffee intake and brain morphology,” and the studies that were conducted were relatively small, said Dr. Hypponen.
One of these smaller studies included a group of women aged 13-30 years. It found that coffee consumption was not associated with total brain volumes, but the findings suggested a U-shaped association with hippocampal volume; higher values were seen both for nondrinkers and the groups with higher consumption.
A small study of elderly patients with diabetes showed no evidence of an association with white matter volume, but there was a possible age-dependent association with gray matter volume.
The largest of the earlier studies had results that were very similar to those of the current study, suggesting that increasing coffee intake is associated with smaller hippocampal volumes, said Dr. Hypponen.
One of the study’s limitations included the fact that full dietary information was available only for a subsample and that factors such as dehydration were measured at baseline rather than at the time of brain MRI.
Another possible study limitation was the use of self-reported data and the fact that lifestyle changes may have occurred between baseline and MRI or covariate measurement.
In addition, the study is subject to a healthy-volunteer bias, and its implications are restricted to White British persons. The association needs to be studied in other ethnic populations, the authors noted.
A reason to cut back?
Commenting on the findings, Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the study is large and quite well done.
“It does raise questions about an increase in risk of dementia with six or more cups of coffee per day,” said Dr. Willett. “At the same time, it provides reassurance about lack of adverse effects of coffee for those consuming three or four cups per day, and little increase in risk, if any, with five cups per day.”
It’s not entirely clear whether the increase in risk with six or more cups of coffee per day represents a “true effect” of coffee, inasmuch as the study did not seem to adjust fully for dietary factors, high consumption of alcohol, or past smoking, said Dr. Willett.
The findings don’t suggest that coffee lovers should give up their Java. “But six or more cups per day is a lot, and those who drink that much might consider cutting back a bit while research continues,” said Dr. Willett.
The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NUTRITIONAL NEUROSCIENCE
Occipital nerve stimulation offers relief for patients with intractable chronic cluster headache
Occipital nerve stimulation may help safely prevent attacks of medically intractable chronic cluster headache, according to a new study.
Medically intractable chronic cluster headaches are unilateral headaches that cause excruciating pain during attacks, which may happen as frequently as eight times per day. They are refractory to, or intolerant of, preventive medications typically used in chronic cluster headaches.
“ONS was associated with a major, rapid, and sustained improvement of severe and long-lasting medically intractable chronic cluster headache, both at high and low intensity,” Leopoldine A. Wilbrink, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Centre, and coauthors wrote in their paper.
The findings were published online.
The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial was carried out at seven hospitals in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Hungary. A total of 150 patients with suspected medically intractable chronic cluster headache were enrolled between October 2010 and December 2017, and observed for 12 weeks at baseline. Of those initially enrolled, 131 patients with at least four medically intractable chronic cluster headache attacks per week and a history of nonresponsiveness to at least three standard preventive medications were randomly allocated to one of two groups: Sixty-five patients received 24 weeks of ONS at high intensity (100% intensity, or the intensity 10% below the threshold of discomfort as reported by the patient) while 66 received low-intensity (30%) ONS. At 25-48 weeks, the patients received open-label ONS.
Safe and well tolerated
“Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy,” wrote Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues.
From baseline to weeks 21-24, the median weekly mean attack frequencies decreased to 7.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5-18.5, P < .0001). A median decrease in 5.21 attacks per week (–11.18 to –0.19, P < .0001) was observed.
The 100% ONS group saw a decrease in mean attack frequency from 17.58 at baseline (range, 9.83-29.33) to 9.5 (3-21.25) at 21-24 weeks with a median change of –4.08 (–11.92 to –0.25). In the 30% ONS group, the mean attack frequency decreased from 15 (9.25 to 22.33) to 6.75 (1.5-16.5) with a median change of –6.5 (–10.83 to –0.08).
At weeks 21-24, the difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between the groups was –2.42 (–5.17 to 3.33).
The authors stated that, in both groups, ONS was “safe and well tolerated.” A total of 129 adverse events were reported in the 100% ONS group and 95 in the 30% ONS group, of which 17 and 9 were considered serious, respectively. The serious adverse events required a short hospital stay to resolve minor hardware issues. The adverse events most frequently observed were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage.
Low intensity stimulation may be best
“The main limitation of the study comes from the difficulty in defining the electrical dose, which was not constant across patients within each group, but individually adjusted depending on the perception of the ONS-induced paraesthesia,” Denys Fontaine, MD, and Michel Lanteri-Minet, MD, both from Université Cote D’Azur in France, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Given that the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the treatment groups, the editorialists stated that “the lowest stimulation intensity that induces paraesthesia is sufficient to obtain an effect in the patients who respond. Increasing the electrical dose or intensity does not seem to bring better efficacy and might even induce discomfort (painful paraesthesia or shock-like sensations) that might substantially reduce the tolerance of this approach.”
While the trial did not provide convincing evidence of high intensity ONS in medically intractable chronic cluster headache, the editorialists are otherwise optimistic about the findings: “… considering the significant difference between baseline and the end of the randomised stimulation phase in both groups (about half of the patients showed a 50% decrease in attack frequency), the findings of this study support the favourable results of previous real-world studies, and indicate that a substantial proportion of patients with intractable chronic cluster headache, although not all, could have their condition substantially improved by ONS.” Dr. Fontaine and Dr. Lanteri-Minet added that they hope that “these data will help health authorities to recognise the efficacy of ONS and consider its approval for use in patients with intractable chronic cluster headache.”
Priorities for future research in this area should “focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action,” Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues wrote.
The study was funded by the Spinoza 2009 Lifetime Scientific Research Achievement Premium, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health (as part of a national provisional reimbursement program for promising new treatments), the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and an unrestricted grant from Medtronic, all to Dr. Ferrari.
Occipital nerve stimulation may help safely prevent attacks of medically intractable chronic cluster headache, according to a new study.
Medically intractable chronic cluster headaches are unilateral headaches that cause excruciating pain during attacks, which may happen as frequently as eight times per day. They are refractory to, or intolerant of, preventive medications typically used in chronic cluster headaches.
“ONS was associated with a major, rapid, and sustained improvement of severe and long-lasting medically intractable chronic cluster headache, both at high and low intensity,” Leopoldine A. Wilbrink, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Centre, and coauthors wrote in their paper.
The findings were published online.
The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial was carried out at seven hospitals in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Hungary. A total of 150 patients with suspected medically intractable chronic cluster headache were enrolled between October 2010 and December 2017, and observed for 12 weeks at baseline. Of those initially enrolled, 131 patients with at least four medically intractable chronic cluster headache attacks per week and a history of nonresponsiveness to at least three standard preventive medications were randomly allocated to one of two groups: Sixty-five patients received 24 weeks of ONS at high intensity (100% intensity, or the intensity 10% below the threshold of discomfort as reported by the patient) while 66 received low-intensity (30%) ONS. At 25-48 weeks, the patients received open-label ONS.
Safe and well tolerated
“Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy,” wrote Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues.
From baseline to weeks 21-24, the median weekly mean attack frequencies decreased to 7.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5-18.5, P < .0001). A median decrease in 5.21 attacks per week (–11.18 to –0.19, P < .0001) was observed.
The 100% ONS group saw a decrease in mean attack frequency from 17.58 at baseline (range, 9.83-29.33) to 9.5 (3-21.25) at 21-24 weeks with a median change of –4.08 (–11.92 to –0.25). In the 30% ONS group, the mean attack frequency decreased from 15 (9.25 to 22.33) to 6.75 (1.5-16.5) with a median change of –6.5 (–10.83 to –0.08).
At weeks 21-24, the difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between the groups was –2.42 (–5.17 to 3.33).
The authors stated that, in both groups, ONS was “safe and well tolerated.” A total of 129 adverse events were reported in the 100% ONS group and 95 in the 30% ONS group, of which 17 and 9 were considered serious, respectively. The serious adverse events required a short hospital stay to resolve minor hardware issues. The adverse events most frequently observed were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage.
Low intensity stimulation may be best
“The main limitation of the study comes from the difficulty in defining the electrical dose, which was not constant across patients within each group, but individually adjusted depending on the perception of the ONS-induced paraesthesia,” Denys Fontaine, MD, and Michel Lanteri-Minet, MD, both from Université Cote D’Azur in France, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Given that the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the treatment groups, the editorialists stated that “the lowest stimulation intensity that induces paraesthesia is sufficient to obtain an effect in the patients who respond. Increasing the electrical dose or intensity does not seem to bring better efficacy and might even induce discomfort (painful paraesthesia or shock-like sensations) that might substantially reduce the tolerance of this approach.”
While the trial did not provide convincing evidence of high intensity ONS in medically intractable chronic cluster headache, the editorialists are otherwise optimistic about the findings: “… considering the significant difference between baseline and the end of the randomised stimulation phase in both groups (about half of the patients showed a 50% decrease in attack frequency), the findings of this study support the favourable results of previous real-world studies, and indicate that a substantial proportion of patients with intractable chronic cluster headache, although not all, could have their condition substantially improved by ONS.” Dr. Fontaine and Dr. Lanteri-Minet added that they hope that “these data will help health authorities to recognise the efficacy of ONS and consider its approval for use in patients with intractable chronic cluster headache.”
Priorities for future research in this area should “focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action,” Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues wrote.
The study was funded by the Spinoza 2009 Lifetime Scientific Research Achievement Premium, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health (as part of a national provisional reimbursement program for promising new treatments), the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and an unrestricted grant from Medtronic, all to Dr. Ferrari.
Occipital nerve stimulation may help safely prevent attacks of medically intractable chronic cluster headache, according to a new study.
Medically intractable chronic cluster headaches are unilateral headaches that cause excruciating pain during attacks, which may happen as frequently as eight times per day. They are refractory to, or intolerant of, preventive medications typically used in chronic cluster headaches.
“ONS was associated with a major, rapid, and sustained improvement of severe and long-lasting medically intractable chronic cluster headache, both at high and low intensity,” Leopoldine A. Wilbrink, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Centre, and coauthors wrote in their paper.
The findings were published online.
The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial was carried out at seven hospitals in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Hungary. A total of 150 patients with suspected medically intractable chronic cluster headache were enrolled between October 2010 and December 2017, and observed for 12 weeks at baseline. Of those initially enrolled, 131 patients with at least four medically intractable chronic cluster headache attacks per week and a history of nonresponsiveness to at least three standard preventive medications were randomly allocated to one of two groups: Sixty-five patients received 24 weeks of ONS at high intensity (100% intensity, or the intensity 10% below the threshold of discomfort as reported by the patient) while 66 received low-intensity (30%) ONS. At 25-48 weeks, the patients received open-label ONS.
Safe and well tolerated
“Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy,” wrote Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues.
From baseline to weeks 21-24, the median weekly mean attack frequencies decreased to 7.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5-18.5, P < .0001). A median decrease in 5.21 attacks per week (–11.18 to –0.19, P < .0001) was observed.
The 100% ONS group saw a decrease in mean attack frequency from 17.58 at baseline (range, 9.83-29.33) to 9.5 (3-21.25) at 21-24 weeks with a median change of –4.08 (–11.92 to –0.25). In the 30% ONS group, the mean attack frequency decreased from 15 (9.25 to 22.33) to 6.75 (1.5-16.5) with a median change of –6.5 (–10.83 to –0.08).
At weeks 21-24, the difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between the groups was –2.42 (–5.17 to 3.33).
The authors stated that, in both groups, ONS was “safe and well tolerated.” A total of 129 adverse events were reported in the 100% ONS group and 95 in the 30% ONS group, of which 17 and 9 were considered serious, respectively. The serious adverse events required a short hospital stay to resolve minor hardware issues. The adverse events most frequently observed were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage.
Low intensity stimulation may be best
“The main limitation of the study comes from the difficulty in defining the electrical dose, which was not constant across patients within each group, but individually adjusted depending on the perception of the ONS-induced paraesthesia,” Denys Fontaine, MD, and Michel Lanteri-Minet, MD, both from Université Cote D’Azur in France, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Given that the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the treatment groups, the editorialists stated that “the lowest stimulation intensity that induces paraesthesia is sufficient to obtain an effect in the patients who respond. Increasing the electrical dose or intensity does not seem to bring better efficacy and might even induce discomfort (painful paraesthesia or shock-like sensations) that might substantially reduce the tolerance of this approach.”
While the trial did not provide convincing evidence of high intensity ONS in medically intractable chronic cluster headache, the editorialists are otherwise optimistic about the findings: “… considering the significant difference between baseline and the end of the randomised stimulation phase in both groups (about half of the patients showed a 50% decrease in attack frequency), the findings of this study support the favourable results of previous real-world studies, and indicate that a substantial proportion of patients with intractable chronic cluster headache, although not all, could have their condition substantially improved by ONS.” Dr. Fontaine and Dr. Lanteri-Minet added that they hope that “these data will help health authorities to recognise the efficacy of ONS and consider its approval for use in patients with intractable chronic cluster headache.”
Priorities for future research in this area should “focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action,” Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues wrote.
The study was funded by the Spinoza 2009 Lifetime Scientific Research Achievement Premium, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health (as part of a national provisional reimbursement program for promising new treatments), the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and an unrestricted grant from Medtronic, all to Dr. Ferrari.
FROM LANCET NEUROLOGY
Novel gene therapy ‘reprograms’ cells to reverse neurologic deficits in children with rare disease
An experimental gene therapy produced marked clinical improvement in children with aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency, a rare genetic disorder that affects the synthesis of key neurotransmitters to cause severe developmental and motor disability.
In an article published July 12, 2021, in Nature Communications, a group of researchers based at the University of California, San Francisco, and Ohio State University, Columbus, described results from seven children ages 4-9 with AADC deficiency who underwent a novel form of surgery to deliver a viral vector expressing the human AADC gene to the midbrain.
Previous trials of this gene therapy in children with AADC deficiency targeted a different region of the brain, the putamen, with only slight clinical improvement. Here, investigators chose two midbrain regions – the substantia nigra pars compacta and the ventral tegmental area – in the hope of restoring healthy AADC enzyme activity in those neurons.
The study’s corresponding author, Krystof Bankiewicz, MD, PhD, professor and vice chair of research at Ohio State University, director of the Brain Health and Performance Center at Ohio State University, and professor emeritus and vice chair for research at UCSF, said in an interview that the brain regions chosen for this trial resulted from years of efforts to identify an ideal target in this disease.
“This particular vector undergoes axonal transport,” he said. “If you inject it into specific regions of the brain it will be transported into the terminals [of the nerve fibers]. And by looking at the imaging of these patients, we found that they still have the wiring in the brain that’s so critical. So we decided to aim at a much more difficult target, going directly to the source of the problem, which is the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area. This targets two critical pathways in the brain: one that drives motor responses and another that controls emotions.”
‘Surprising’ improvement seen
The children in the study – four girls and three boys – underwent surgery from 2016 to the end of 2018, and were divided into two dose cohorts, with one receiving three times the amount of vector as the other. Both groups, however, saw similar levels of improvement.
All but one child saw complete resolution of a hallmark symptom of the disease – oculogyric crises, or prolonged spasms of muscles controlling eye movement – within 3 months of surgery. Of the children followed at least 18 months, six attained head control within a year, two became able to eat and drink by mouth, and four gained the ability to sit up unaided in that time. At 18 months one child had learned to speak 50 words using an augmentative communication device.
One child died unexpectedly 7 months after the procedure, Dr. Bankiewicz said in an interview. This death appeared to be caused by cardiac complications of his disease, Dr. Bankiewicz said, which are common in AADC deficiency.
While the investigators are now looking at delivering the AADC gene therapy in younger children – who were excluded from this trial because of safety concerns surrounding the complex procedure – investigators were surprised by the level of improvement seen in older children.
“We initially didn’t believe – at least not all of us – that we could actually make an impact in the older patients, and that is not the case,” said Dr. Bankiewicz, who has since used the same gene therapy on a compassionate-use basis in Europe and seen durable clinical improvement in patients as old as 26. “The fact that we saw a response in that patient tells us something about how incredibly plastic the brain is.”
While the new study does not detail improvements in the children’s social and emotional well-being, Dr. Bankiewicz said these, too, were pronounced. “Kids fall into oculogyric crises in stress-inducing situation. They might be in a stroller being taken for a walk, and something in the environment would stress them. Sometimes they had to be kept in a dark room isolated from stress.” Following the gene therapy, “they’re laughing, they’re social, they can interact with their environment. It’s really touching to see them able to develop a bond now with their caregivers.”
Implication for other disorders
Dr. Bankiewicz and colleagues have previously used the same gene to boost AADC activity in patients with Parkinson’s disease. The group is also in trials to deliver a neuroprotective gene to the brains of people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, and a gene-silencing therapy in patients with Huntington’s disease. They will also continue recruiting pediatric patients for trials of the AADC gene therapy.
“We have been developing a method for safely treating younger children, so now we will go to 3 years old and maybe even below,” Dr. Bankiewicz said. “Earlier is probably better, but for technical and safety considerations we needed to be conservative first. It is hugely stressful to go into very sick patients with that type of therapy in that part of the brain. We had to get it right the first time, and it looks like we did.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the AADC Research Trust, the Pediatric Neurotransmitter Disease Association, and Ohio State University, with materials and technical support donated by ClearPoint Neuro. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with producers of diagnostic tests or biotechnology firms. Dr. Bankiewicz is a founder and shareholder of Brain Neurotherapy Bio, a company that develops gene therapies for Parkinson’s and other diseases.
An experimental gene therapy produced marked clinical improvement in children with aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency, a rare genetic disorder that affects the synthesis of key neurotransmitters to cause severe developmental and motor disability.
In an article published July 12, 2021, in Nature Communications, a group of researchers based at the University of California, San Francisco, and Ohio State University, Columbus, described results from seven children ages 4-9 with AADC deficiency who underwent a novel form of surgery to deliver a viral vector expressing the human AADC gene to the midbrain.
Previous trials of this gene therapy in children with AADC deficiency targeted a different region of the brain, the putamen, with only slight clinical improvement. Here, investigators chose two midbrain regions – the substantia nigra pars compacta and the ventral tegmental area – in the hope of restoring healthy AADC enzyme activity in those neurons.
The study’s corresponding author, Krystof Bankiewicz, MD, PhD, professor and vice chair of research at Ohio State University, director of the Brain Health and Performance Center at Ohio State University, and professor emeritus and vice chair for research at UCSF, said in an interview that the brain regions chosen for this trial resulted from years of efforts to identify an ideal target in this disease.
“This particular vector undergoes axonal transport,” he said. “If you inject it into specific regions of the brain it will be transported into the terminals [of the nerve fibers]. And by looking at the imaging of these patients, we found that they still have the wiring in the brain that’s so critical. So we decided to aim at a much more difficult target, going directly to the source of the problem, which is the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area. This targets two critical pathways in the brain: one that drives motor responses and another that controls emotions.”
‘Surprising’ improvement seen
The children in the study – four girls and three boys – underwent surgery from 2016 to the end of 2018, and were divided into two dose cohorts, with one receiving three times the amount of vector as the other. Both groups, however, saw similar levels of improvement.
All but one child saw complete resolution of a hallmark symptom of the disease – oculogyric crises, or prolonged spasms of muscles controlling eye movement – within 3 months of surgery. Of the children followed at least 18 months, six attained head control within a year, two became able to eat and drink by mouth, and four gained the ability to sit up unaided in that time. At 18 months one child had learned to speak 50 words using an augmentative communication device.
One child died unexpectedly 7 months after the procedure, Dr. Bankiewicz said in an interview. This death appeared to be caused by cardiac complications of his disease, Dr. Bankiewicz said, which are common in AADC deficiency.
While the investigators are now looking at delivering the AADC gene therapy in younger children – who were excluded from this trial because of safety concerns surrounding the complex procedure – investigators were surprised by the level of improvement seen in older children.
“We initially didn’t believe – at least not all of us – that we could actually make an impact in the older patients, and that is not the case,” said Dr. Bankiewicz, who has since used the same gene therapy on a compassionate-use basis in Europe and seen durable clinical improvement in patients as old as 26. “The fact that we saw a response in that patient tells us something about how incredibly plastic the brain is.”
While the new study does not detail improvements in the children’s social and emotional well-being, Dr. Bankiewicz said these, too, were pronounced. “Kids fall into oculogyric crises in stress-inducing situation. They might be in a stroller being taken for a walk, and something in the environment would stress them. Sometimes they had to be kept in a dark room isolated from stress.” Following the gene therapy, “they’re laughing, they’re social, they can interact with their environment. It’s really touching to see them able to develop a bond now with their caregivers.”
Implication for other disorders
Dr. Bankiewicz and colleagues have previously used the same gene to boost AADC activity in patients with Parkinson’s disease. The group is also in trials to deliver a neuroprotective gene to the brains of people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, and a gene-silencing therapy in patients with Huntington’s disease. They will also continue recruiting pediatric patients for trials of the AADC gene therapy.
“We have been developing a method for safely treating younger children, so now we will go to 3 years old and maybe even below,” Dr. Bankiewicz said. “Earlier is probably better, but for technical and safety considerations we needed to be conservative first. It is hugely stressful to go into very sick patients with that type of therapy in that part of the brain. We had to get it right the first time, and it looks like we did.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the AADC Research Trust, the Pediatric Neurotransmitter Disease Association, and Ohio State University, with materials and technical support donated by ClearPoint Neuro. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with producers of diagnostic tests or biotechnology firms. Dr. Bankiewicz is a founder and shareholder of Brain Neurotherapy Bio, a company that develops gene therapies for Parkinson’s and other diseases.
An experimental gene therapy produced marked clinical improvement in children with aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency, a rare genetic disorder that affects the synthesis of key neurotransmitters to cause severe developmental and motor disability.
In an article published July 12, 2021, in Nature Communications, a group of researchers based at the University of California, San Francisco, and Ohio State University, Columbus, described results from seven children ages 4-9 with AADC deficiency who underwent a novel form of surgery to deliver a viral vector expressing the human AADC gene to the midbrain.
Previous trials of this gene therapy in children with AADC deficiency targeted a different region of the brain, the putamen, with only slight clinical improvement. Here, investigators chose two midbrain regions – the substantia nigra pars compacta and the ventral tegmental area – in the hope of restoring healthy AADC enzyme activity in those neurons.
The study’s corresponding author, Krystof Bankiewicz, MD, PhD, professor and vice chair of research at Ohio State University, director of the Brain Health and Performance Center at Ohio State University, and professor emeritus and vice chair for research at UCSF, said in an interview that the brain regions chosen for this trial resulted from years of efforts to identify an ideal target in this disease.
“This particular vector undergoes axonal transport,” he said. “If you inject it into specific regions of the brain it will be transported into the terminals [of the nerve fibers]. And by looking at the imaging of these patients, we found that they still have the wiring in the brain that’s so critical. So we decided to aim at a much more difficult target, going directly to the source of the problem, which is the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area. This targets two critical pathways in the brain: one that drives motor responses and another that controls emotions.”
‘Surprising’ improvement seen
The children in the study – four girls and three boys – underwent surgery from 2016 to the end of 2018, and were divided into two dose cohorts, with one receiving three times the amount of vector as the other. Both groups, however, saw similar levels of improvement.
All but one child saw complete resolution of a hallmark symptom of the disease – oculogyric crises, or prolonged spasms of muscles controlling eye movement – within 3 months of surgery. Of the children followed at least 18 months, six attained head control within a year, two became able to eat and drink by mouth, and four gained the ability to sit up unaided in that time. At 18 months one child had learned to speak 50 words using an augmentative communication device.
One child died unexpectedly 7 months after the procedure, Dr. Bankiewicz said in an interview. This death appeared to be caused by cardiac complications of his disease, Dr. Bankiewicz said, which are common in AADC deficiency.
While the investigators are now looking at delivering the AADC gene therapy in younger children – who were excluded from this trial because of safety concerns surrounding the complex procedure – investigators were surprised by the level of improvement seen in older children.
“We initially didn’t believe – at least not all of us – that we could actually make an impact in the older patients, and that is not the case,” said Dr. Bankiewicz, who has since used the same gene therapy on a compassionate-use basis in Europe and seen durable clinical improvement in patients as old as 26. “The fact that we saw a response in that patient tells us something about how incredibly plastic the brain is.”
While the new study does not detail improvements in the children’s social and emotional well-being, Dr. Bankiewicz said these, too, were pronounced. “Kids fall into oculogyric crises in stress-inducing situation. They might be in a stroller being taken for a walk, and something in the environment would stress them. Sometimes they had to be kept in a dark room isolated from stress.” Following the gene therapy, “they’re laughing, they’re social, they can interact with their environment. It’s really touching to see them able to develop a bond now with their caregivers.”
Implication for other disorders
Dr. Bankiewicz and colleagues have previously used the same gene to boost AADC activity in patients with Parkinson’s disease. The group is also in trials to deliver a neuroprotective gene to the brains of people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, and a gene-silencing therapy in patients with Huntington’s disease. They will also continue recruiting pediatric patients for trials of the AADC gene therapy.
“We have been developing a method for safely treating younger children, so now we will go to 3 years old and maybe even below,” Dr. Bankiewicz said. “Earlier is probably better, but for technical and safety considerations we needed to be conservative first. It is hugely stressful to go into very sick patients with that type of therapy in that part of the brain. We had to get it right the first time, and it looks like we did.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the AADC Research Trust, the Pediatric Neurotransmitter Disease Association, and Ohio State University, with materials and technical support donated by ClearPoint Neuro. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with producers of diagnostic tests or biotechnology firms. Dr. Bankiewicz is a founder and shareholder of Brain Neurotherapy Bio, a company that develops gene therapies for Parkinson’s and other diseases.
FROM NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Hematologic cancer increases risk of delivery complications
The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.
The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.
“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”
However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.
“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”
Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.
Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.
“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”
The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.
Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.
For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.
“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.
Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.
Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.
“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”
Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.
The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.
The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.
“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”
However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.
“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”
Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.
Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.
“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”
The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.
Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.
For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.
“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.
Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.
Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.
“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”
Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.
The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.
The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.
“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”
However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.
“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”
Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.
Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.
“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”
The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.
Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.
For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.
“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.
Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.
Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.
“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”
Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
Updated consensus statement assesses new migraine treatments
“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.
To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
New migraine treatment
Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.
Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”
The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.
More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.
Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.
Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
Initiating treatment
When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.
The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.
From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.
The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
Not everyone agrees
Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:
1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment
2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”
Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”
Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”
They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”
Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”
Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”
Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
Suggested reading
Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.
Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.
Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.
“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.
To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
New migraine treatment
Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.
Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”
The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.
More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.
Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.
Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
Initiating treatment
When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.
The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.
From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.
The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
Not everyone agrees
Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:
1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment
2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”
Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”
Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”
They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”
Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”
Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”
Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
Suggested reading
Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.
Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.
Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.
“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.
To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
New migraine treatment
Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.
Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”
The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.
More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.
Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.
Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
Initiating treatment
When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.
The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.
From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.
The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
Not everyone agrees
Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:
1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment
2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”
Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”
Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”
They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”
Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”
Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”
Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
Suggested reading
Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.
Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.
Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.
FROM HEADACHE
Targeted CLL treatments found effective in managing associated autoimmune cytopenias
Newer targeted drugs for chronic lymphocytic leukemia also appear to have a beneficial impact on underlying autoimmune cytopenias (AICs), results of a large retrospective study suggest.
Many autoimmune cytopenias improved or resolved during treatment with ibrutinib, idelalisib, or venetoclax, according to authors of the study, which appears in the journal Blood.
Treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in a “negligible portion” of patients overall, according to the report. The prevalence was about 1% each for patients treated with ibrutinib or idelalisib, though seen more frequently (at 7%) among patients who received venetoclax.
Nevertheless, treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were “easily manageable” without interventions such as steroids and rituximab, and without need to interrupt the targeted treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the authors, led by Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the department of molecular biotechnology and health sciences at the University of Torino in Italy.
“Ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax have a beneficial impact on CLL-related preexisting AICs, achieving in most patients, in parallel with the consolidated antitumor efficacy, an effective control of the autoimmune phenomena,” Dr. Vitale and coauthors wrote in their report.
Study results
The retrospective study included 815 patients, of whom 572 were treated with ibrutinib, 143 with idelalisib plus rituximab, and 100 with venetoclax. Nine percent of ibrutinib-treated patients and 12% of venetoclax-treated patients also received an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab or obinutuzumab.
One hundred and four patients (13%) had preexisting autoimmune cytopenias, though the majority were resolved or controlled at the time targeted therapy was started.
Of patients with autoimmune cytopenias that were unresolved at the beginning of targeted therapy, 80% improved or resolved after starting targeted treatment, authors reported.
Most patients who developed autoimmune cytopenias on treatment had high-risk features such as unmutated IGHV, del(17)p, or TP53 mutation, according to the report.
Those treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in 1% of the ibrutinib group, 0.9% of the idelalisib group, and 7% of the venetoclax group. Out of 12 total treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias, all but 2 were resolved or controlled with dose reductions or temporary suspensions and use of steroids or rituximab, the report shows.
The higher incidence of autoimmune cytopenias in the venetoclax group held steady even when considering just the patients who had relapsed/refractory disease or had at least two prior lines of therapy, suggesting a “more meaningful” incidence, compared to what was observed for ibrutinib and idelalisib, the investigators said.
“However, the risk of autoimmune cytopenia episodes should not limit the use of venetoclax, considering the strong efficacy of this drug in treating patients with CLL, including those with high-risk features, and the possibility of effectively managing autoimmune complications, mostly without treatment interruption,” they concluded in their report.
Implications for patients with CLL
Findings of this study indicate that targeted therapies are effective for managing both CLL and autoimmune cytopenias, according to Carol Moreno, MD, PhD, of Hospital Sant Pau in Barcelona.
Moreover, the targeted therapies do not appear to change the overall prevalence of autoimmune cytopenias, compared to untreated patients, Dr. Moreno said in a commentary on the findings also published in Blood.
“These results are consistent with the concept that targeted therapies are not associated with a higher risk of autoimmune cytopenias, and that, if present, can be managed with immunosuppressive agents,” she wrote.
Autoimmune cytopenias and CLL
Autoimmune cytopenias are a relatively common complication of CLL, occurring in 5%-9% of CLL patients, Dr. Vitale and coauthors said in their report. The most common presentations include autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).
Evidence from earlier studies suggests that treatment for CLL may trigger autoimmune cytopenias. Results of retrospective studies in the 1990s linked single-agent fludarabine to increased risk of AIHA, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.
However, subsequent studies showed that fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (FC) and fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) were associated with low proportions of AIHA.
“Taken together, these results convincingly suggest that rather than treatment, it is the lack of response to it that conveys a higher risk of AIC,” Dr. Moreno wrote.
Management considerations
There are currently no clinical practice guidelines that advise on how to manage patients who develop AICs during targeted treatment for CLL, Dr. Vitale and colleagues said in their report.
However, this new study data may help inform management of patients with CLL and an autoimmune cytopenia, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.
If the patient doesn’t immediately require CLL treatment, patients can be managed according to existing guidelines for AIHA and ITP, she said. “Nonresponding patients should be given CLL therapy,” she added.
For CLL patients who do require therapy and have a preexisting or treatment-emergent AIC, a “CLL-oriented” treatment approach could be considered, according to Dr. Moreno.
“A reasonable approach consists of a short course (2 to 4 weeks) of corticosteroids followed by effective CLL therapy (i.e., FCR, bendamustine plus rituximab or ibrutinib), depending on the clinical situation,” she added.
Dr. Vitale reported receiving consultancy fees from Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr. Moreno declared no competing financial interests related to her commentary.
Newer targeted drugs for chronic lymphocytic leukemia also appear to have a beneficial impact on underlying autoimmune cytopenias (AICs), results of a large retrospective study suggest.
Many autoimmune cytopenias improved or resolved during treatment with ibrutinib, idelalisib, or venetoclax, according to authors of the study, which appears in the journal Blood.
Treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in a “negligible portion” of patients overall, according to the report. The prevalence was about 1% each for patients treated with ibrutinib or idelalisib, though seen more frequently (at 7%) among patients who received venetoclax.
Nevertheless, treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were “easily manageable” without interventions such as steroids and rituximab, and without need to interrupt the targeted treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the authors, led by Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the department of molecular biotechnology and health sciences at the University of Torino in Italy.
“Ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax have a beneficial impact on CLL-related preexisting AICs, achieving in most patients, in parallel with the consolidated antitumor efficacy, an effective control of the autoimmune phenomena,” Dr. Vitale and coauthors wrote in their report.
Study results
The retrospective study included 815 patients, of whom 572 were treated with ibrutinib, 143 with idelalisib plus rituximab, and 100 with venetoclax. Nine percent of ibrutinib-treated patients and 12% of venetoclax-treated patients also received an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab or obinutuzumab.
One hundred and four patients (13%) had preexisting autoimmune cytopenias, though the majority were resolved or controlled at the time targeted therapy was started.
Of patients with autoimmune cytopenias that were unresolved at the beginning of targeted therapy, 80% improved or resolved after starting targeted treatment, authors reported.
Most patients who developed autoimmune cytopenias on treatment had high-risk features such as unmutated IGHV, del(17)p, or TP53 mutation, according to the report.
Those treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in 1% of the ibrutinib group, 0.9% of the idelalisib group, and 7% of the venetoclax group. Out of 12 total treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias, all but 2 were resolved or controlled with dose reductions or temporary suspensions and use of steroids or rituximab, the report shows.
The higher incidence of autoimmune cytopenias in the venetoclax group held steady even when considering just the patients who had relapsed/refractory disease or had at least two prior lines of therapy, suggesting a “more meaningful” incidence, compared to what was observed for ibrutinib and idelalisib, the investigators said.
“However, the risk of autoimmune cytopenia episodes should not limit the use of venetoclax, considering the strong efficacy of this drug in treating patients with CLL, including those with high-risk features, and the possibility of effectively managing autoimmune complications, mostly without treatment interruption,” they concluded in their report.
Implications for patients with CLL
Findings of this study indicate that targeted therapies are effective for managing both CLL and autoimmune cytopenias, according to Carol Moreno, MD, PhD, of Hospital Sant Pau in Barcelona.
Moreover, the targeted therapies do not appear to change the overall prevalence of autoimmune cytopenias, compared to untreated patients, Dr. Moreno said in a commentary on the findings also published in Blood.
“These results are consistent with the concept that targeted therapies are not associated with a higher risk of autoimmune cytopenias, and that, if present, can be managed with immunosuppressive agents,” she wrote.
Autoimmune cytopenias and CLL
Autoimmune cytopenias are a relatively common complication of CLL, occurring in 5%-9% of CLL patients, Dr. Vitale and coauthors said in their report. The most common presentations include autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).
Evidence from earlier studies suggests that treatment for CLL may trigger autoimmune cytopenias. Results of retrospective studies in the 1990s linked single-agent fludarabine to increased risk of AIHA, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.
However, subsequent studies showed that fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (FC) and fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) were associated with low proportions of AIHA.
“Taken together, these results convincingly suggest that rather than treatment, it is the lack of response to it that conveys a higher risk of AIC,” Dr. Moreno wrote.
Management considerations
There are currently no clinical practice guidelines that advise on how to manage patients who develop AICs during targeted treatment for CLL, Dr. Vitale and colleagues said in their report.
However, this new study data may help inform management of patients with CLL and an autoimmune cytopenia, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.
If the patient doesn’t immediately require CLL treatment, patients can be managed according to existing guidelines for AIHA and ITP, she said. “Nonresponding patients should be given CLL therapy,” she added.
For CLL patients who do require therapy and have a preexisting or treatment-emergent AIC, a “CLL-oriented” treatment approach could be considered, according to Dr. Moreno.
“A reasonable approach consists of a short course (2 to 4 weeks) of corticosteroids followed by effective CLL therapy (i.e., FCR, bendamustine plus rituximab or ibrutinib), depending on the clinical situation,” she added.
Dr. Vitale reported receiving consultancy fees from Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr. Moreno declared no competing financial interests related to her commentary.
Newer targeted drugs for chronic lymphocytic leukemia also appear to have a beneficial impact on underlying autoimmune cytopenias (AICs), results of a large retrospective study suggest.
Many autoimmune cytopenias improved or resolved during treatment with ibrutinib, idelalisib, or venetoclax, according to authors of the study, which appears in the journal Blood.
Treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in a “negligible portion” of patients overall, according to the report. The prevalence was about 1% each for patients treated with ibrutinib or idelalisib, though seen more frequently (at 7%) among patients who received venetoclax.
Nevertheless, treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were “easily manageable” without interventions such as steroids and rituximab, and without need to interrupt the targeted treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the authors, led by Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the department of molecular biotechnology and health sciences at the University of Torino in Italy.
“Ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax have a beneficial impact on CLL-related preexisting AICs, achieving in most patients, in parallel with the consolidated antitumor efficacy, an effective control of the autoimmune phenomena,” Dr. Vitale and coauthors wrote in their report.
Study results
The retrospective study included 815 patients, of whom 572 were treated with ibrutinib, 143 with idelalisib plus rituximab, and 100 with venetoclax. Nine percent of ibrutinib-treated patients and 12% of venetoclax-treated patients also received an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab or obinutuzumab.
One hundred and four patients (13%) had preexisting autoimmune cytopenias, though the majority were resolved or controlled at the time targeted therapy was started.
Of patients with autoimmune cytopenias that were unresolved at the beginning of targeted therapy, 80% improved or resolved after starting targeted treatment, authors reported.
Most patients who developed autoimmune cytopenias on treatment had high-risk features such as unmutated IGHV, del(17)p, or TP53 mutation, according to the report.
Those treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in 1% of the ibrutinib group, 0.9% of the idelalisib group, and 7% of the venetoclax group. Out of 12 total treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias, all but 2 were resolved or controlled with dose reductions or temporary suspensions and use of steroids or rituximab, the report shows.
The higher incidence of autoimmune cytopenias in the venetoclax group held steady even when considering just the patients who had relapsed/refractory disease or had at least two prior lines of therapy, suggesting a “more meaningful” incidence, compared to what was observed for ibrutinib and idelalisib, the investigators said.
“However, the risk of autoimmune cytopenia episodes should not limit the use of venetoclax, considering the strong efficacy of this drug in treating patients with CLL, including those with high-risk features, and the possibility of effectively managing autoimmune complications, mostly without treatment interruption,” they concluded in their report.
Implications for patients with CLL
Findings of this study indicate that targeted therapies are effective for managing both CLL and autoimmune cytopenias, according to Carol Moreno, MD, PhD, of Hospital Sant Pau in Barcelona.
Moreover, the targeted therapies do not appear to change the overall prevalence of autoimmune cytopenias, compared to untreated patients, Dr. Moreno said in a commentary on the findings also published in Blood.
“These results are consistent with the concept that targeted therapies are not associated with a higher risk of autoimmune cytopenias, and that, if present, can be managed with immunosuppressive agents,” she wrote.
Autoimmune cytopenias and CLL
Autoimmune cytopenias are a relatively common complication of CLL, occurring in 5%-9% of CLL patients, Dr. Vitale and coauthors said in their report. The most common presentations include autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).
Evidence from earlier studies suggests that treatment for CLL may trigger autoimmune cytopenias. Results of retrospective studies in the 1990s linked single-agent fludarabine to increased risk of AIHA, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.
However, subsequent studies showed that fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (FC) and fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) were associated with low proportions of AIHA.
“Taken together, these results convincingly suggest that rather than treatment, it is the lack of response to it that conveys a higher risk of AIC,” Dr. Moreno wrote.
Management considerations
There are currently no clinical practice guidelines that advise on how to manage patients who develop AICs during targeted treatment for CLL, Dr. Vitale and colleagues said in their report.
However, this new study data may help inform management of patients with CLL and an autoimmune cytopenia, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.
If the patient doesn’t immediately require CLL treatment, patients can be managed according to existing guidelines for AIHA and ITP, she said. “Nonresponding patients should be given CLL therapy,” she added.
For CLL patients who do require therapy and have a preexisting or treatment-emergent AIC, a “CLL-oriented” treatment approach could be considered, according to Dr. Moreno.
“A reasonable approach consists of a short course (2 to 4 weeks) of corticosteroids followed by effective CLL therapy (i.e., FCR, bendamustine plus rituximab or ibrutinib), depending on the clinical situation,” she added.
Dr. Vitale reported receiving consultancy fees from Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr. Moreno declared no competing financial interests related to her commentary.
FROM BLOOD
Chronic stress and genetics can raise the risk of Alzheimer’s disease
The researchers also proposed a mechanism to account for how genetic factors may affect HPA axis reactivity and lead to inflammation, which is a core component of neurodegeneration.
“Chronic stress can impact the way immune cells in the brain function and increase inflammation. Genetic variants within that stress response can further affect the function of immune cells,” lead author Ayeisha Milligan Armstrong, a PhD candidate at Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute in Perth, Australia, said in an interview.
The findings were published online June 22 in Biological Reviews).
Research has found that long-term stress during early and mid-life is increasingly associated with cognitive decline and neurodegeneration. There is already evidence to suggest that chronic stress is a risk factor for the “sporadic” or late-onset subtype of Alzheimer’s disease.
A cascade of events
Stress activates the HPA, which in turn regulates bodily levels of cortisol, a glucocorticoid stress hormone. Increased levels of cortisol are frequently observed in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and “make a major contribution to the disease process,” the authors wrote. For example, the hippocampus – a part of the brain involved in processing and forming memories – has numerous glucocorticoid receptors and is “therefore particularly sensitive to the effects of glucocorticoids.” However, the molecular mechanisms involved remain poorly understood.
“There is an intimate interplay between exposure to chronic stress and pathways influencing the body’s reaction to such stress,” senior author David Groth, PhD, said in a statement. Dr. Groth is an associate professor at Curtin University in Perth, Australia.
There is variation between individuals with regard to how sensitive they are to stress and glucocorticoid responses. Environmental factors such as stress are thought to be at least partly responsible, as are genetic factors such as genetic polymorphisms and epigenetics. “Genetic variations within these pathways can influence the way the brain’s immune system behaves, leading to a dysfunctional response. In the brain, this leads to a chronic disruption of normal brain processes, increasing the risk of subsequent neurodegeneration and ultimately dementia,” Dr. Groth said.
The researchers suggested that these variations may prime the immune cells of the brain, the microglia, to cause inflammation in the brain. Normally, microglia are involved in monitoring the brain tissue for and responding to damage and infections to keep the brain healthy. However, in an inflammatory state, the microglia instead contribute to a “more neurotoxic environment through the production of proinflammatory cytokines, altered synaptic pruning, and the reduced production of protective neurotrophic factors,” the authors wrote. Microglia may also promote the accumulation of amyloid beta and tau protein, which damage the brain tissue and can cause neurodegeneration. There are different groups of microglia in the brain, each of which may respond differently to genetic and environmental stressors.
“Genome-wide association studies have found that of the genes identified as being associated with Alzheimer’s disease, 60.5% are expressed in microglia,” the authors noted.
To connect the roles of chronic stress and brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers proposed a “two-hit” hypothesis: Early or mid-life exposure to stress primes the microglia to enter an inflammatory state in response to a secondary stimulus later in life.
Pay attention to stress
For clinicians, this paper highlights the importance of managing stress in patients and their families.
“Clinicians need to be attuned to the effects of stress on patients and their caregivers, and how that [stress] can affect their morbidity and mortality,” Cynthia Munro, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. She added that attention must be paid to modifiable risk factors such as poor sleep and diet.
Although managing stress is important, that doesn’t mean that everyone who’s experienced chronic stress will develop Alzheimer’s disease. “Chronic stress can alter the HPA axis but it doesn’t necessarily do so in everyone. A cascade of events needs to occur,” said Dr. Munro. “People should always try to reduce the effects of stress to the extent that they can. Stress can lead to a whole host of negative health outcomes, not just Alzheimer’s disease.”
Next steps
Moving forward, the researchers plan to further investigate the molecular mechanisms responsible for the role of stress in Alzheimer’s disease and how genetic variants affect neurodegeneration, Ms. Armstrong said. Ultimately, understanding how stress and genetics contribute to Alzheimer’s disease may lead to the identification of possible therapeutic targets.
Ms. Armstrong and Dr. Munro declared no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently funded.
The researchers also proposed a mechanism to account for how genetic factors may affect HPA axis reactivity and lead to inflammation, which is a core component of neurodegeneration.
“Chronic stress can impact the way immune cells in the brain function and increase inflammation. Genetic variants within that stress response can further affect the function of immune cells,” lead author Ayeisha Milligan Armstrong, a PhD candidate at Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute in Perth, Australia, said in an interview.
The findings were published online June 22 in Biological Reviews).
Research has found that long-term stress during early and mid-life is increasingly associated with cognitive decline and neurodegeneration. There is already evidence to suggest that chronic stress is a risk factor for the “sporadic” or late-onset subtype of Alzheimer’s disease.
A cascade of events
Stress activates the HPA, which in turn regulates bodily levels of cortisol, a glucocorticoid stress hormone. Increased levels of cortisol are frequently observed in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and “make a major contribution to the disease process,” the authors wrote. For example, the hippocampus – a part of the brain involved in processing and forming memories – has numerous glucocorticoid receptors and is “therefore particularly sensitive to the effects of glucocorticoids.” However, the molecular mechanisms involved remain poorly understood.
“There is an intimate interplay between exposure to chronic stress and pathways influencing the body’s reaction to such stress,” senior author David Groth, PhD, said in a statement. Dr. Groth is an associate professor at Curtin University in Perth, Australia.
There is variation between individuals with regard to how sensitive they are to stress and glucocorticoid responses. Environmental factors such as stress are thought to be at least partly responsible, as are genetic factors such as genetic polymorphisms and epigenetics. “Genetic variations within these pathways can influence the way the brain’s immune system behaves, leading to a dysfunctional response. In the brain, this leads to a chronic disruption of normal brain processes, increasing the risk of subsequent neurodegeneration and ultimately dementia,” Dr. Groth said.
The researchers suggested that these variations may prime the immune cells of the brain, the microglia, to cause inflammation in the brain. Normally, microglia are involved in monitoring the brain tissue for and responding to damage and infections to keep the brain healthy. However, in an inflammatory state, the microglia instead contribute to a “more neurotoxic environment through the production of proinflammatory cytokines, altered synaptic pruning, and the reduced production of protective neurotrophic factors,” the authors wrote. Microglia may also promote the accumulation of amyloid beta and tau protein, which damage the brain tissue and can cause neurodegeneration. There are different groups of microglia in the brain, each of which may respond differently to genetic and environmental stressors.
“Genome-wide association studies have found that of the genes identified as being associated with Alzheimer’s disease, 60.5% are expressed in microglia,” the authors noted.
To connect the roles of chronic stress and brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers proposed a “two-hit” hypothesis: Early or mid-life exposure to stress primes the microglia to enter an inflammatory state in response to a secondary stimulus later in life.
Pay attention to stress
For clinicians, this paper highlights the importance of managing stress in patients and their families.
“Clinicians need to be attuned to the effects of stress on patients and their caregivers, and how that [stress] can affect their morbidity and mortality,” Cynthia Munro, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. She added that attention must be paid to modifiable risk factors such as poor sleep and diet.
Although managing stress is important, that doesn’t mean that everyone who’s experienced chronic stress will develop Alzheimer’s disease. “Chronic stress can alter the HPA axis but it doesn’t necessarily do so in everyone. A cascade of events needs to occur,” said Dr. Munro. “People should always try to reduce the effects of stress to the extent that they can. Stress can lead to a whole host of negative health outcomes, not just Alzheimer’s disease.”
Next steps
Moving forward, the researchers plan to further investigate the molecular mechanisms responsible for the role of stress in Alzheimer’s disease and how genetic variants affect neurodegeneration, Ms. Armstrong said. Ultimately, understanding how stress and genetics contribute to Alzheimer’s disease may lead to the identification of possible therapeutic targets.
Ms. Armstrong and Dr. Munro declared no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently funded.
The researchers also proposed a mechanism to account for how genetic factors may affect HPA axis reactivity and lead to inflammation, which is a core component of neurodegeneration.
“Chronic stress can impact the way immune cells in the brain function and increase inflammation. Genetic variants within that stress response can further affect the function of immune cells,” lead author Ayeisha Milligan Armstrong, a PhD candidate at Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute in Perth, Australia, said in an interview.
The findings were published online June 22 in Biological Reviews).
Research has found that long-term stress during early and mid-life is increasingly associated with cognitive decline and neurodegeneration. There is already evidence to suggest that chronic stress is a risk factor for the “sporadic” or late-onset subtype of Alzheimer’s disease.
A cascade of events
Stress activates the HPA, which in turn regulates bodily levels of cortisol, a glucocorticoid stress hormone. Increased levels of cortisol are frequently observed in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and “make a major contribution to the disease process,” the authors wrote. For example, the hippocampus – a part of the brain involved in processing and forming memories – has numerous glucocorticoid receptors and is “therefore particularly sensitive to the effects of glucocorticoids.” However, the molecular mechanisms involved remain poorly understood.
“There is an intimate interplay between exposure to chronic stress and pathways influencing the body’s reaction to such stress,” senior author David Groth, PhD, said in a statement. Dr. Groth is an associate professor at Curtin University in Perth, Australia.
There is variation between individuals with regard to how sensitive they are to stress and glucocorticoid responses. Environmental factors such as stress are thought to be at least partly responsible, as are genetic factors such as genetic polymorphisms and epigenetics. “Genetic variations within these pathways can influence the way the brain’s immune system behaves, leading to a dysfunctional response. In the brain, this leads to a chronic disruption of normal brain processes, increasing the risk of subsequent neurodegeneration and ultimately dementia,” Dr. Groth said.
The researchers suggested that these variations may prime the immune cells of the brain, the microglia, to cause inflammation in the brain. Normally, microglia are involved in monitoring the brain tissue for and responding to damage and infections to keep the brain healthy. However, in an inflammatory state, the microglia instead contribute to a “more neurotoxic environment through the production of proinflammatory cytokines, altered synaptic pruning, and the reduced production of protective neurotrophic factors,” the authors wrote. Microglia may also promote the accumulation of amyloid beta and tau protein, which damage the brain tissue and can cause neurodegeneration. There are different groups of microglia in the brain, each of which may respond differently to genetic and environmental stressors.
“Genome-wide association studies have found that of the genes identified as being associated with Alzheimer’s disease, 60.5% are expressed in microglia,” the authors noted.
To connect the roles of chronic stress and brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers proposed a “two-hit” hypothesis: Early or mid-life exposure to stress primes the microglia to enter an inflammatory state in response to a secondary stimulus later in life.
Pay attention to stress
For clinicians, this paper highlights the importance of managing stress in patients and their families.
“Clinicians need to be attuned to the effects of stress on patients and their caregivers, and how that [stress] can affect their morbidity and mortality,” Cynthia Munro, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. She added that attention must be paid to modifiable risk factors such as poor sleep and diet.
Although managing stress is important, that doesn’t mean that everyone who’s experienced chronic stress will develop Alzheimer’s disease. “Chronic stress can alter the HPA axis but it doesn’t necessarily do so in everyone. A cascade of events needs to occur,” said Dr. Munro. “People should always try to reduce the effects of stress to the extent that they can. Stress can lead to a whole host of negative health outcomes, not just Alzheimer’s disease.”
Next steps
Moving forward, the researchers plan to further investigate the molecular mechanisms responsible for the role of stress in Alzheimer’s disease and how genetic variants affect neurodegeneration, Ms. Armstrong said. Ultimately, understanding how stress and genetics contribute to Alzheimer’s disease may lead to the identification of possible therapeutic targets.
Ms. Armstrong and Dr. Munro declared no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently funded.
FROM BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
Is walking speed following stroke a good predictor of recovery?
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Clinical Rehabilitation
Magnesium is strongly tied to lower risk for intracranial aneurysm
The effects may be partially mediated by magnesium’s influence on systolic blood pressure, new research suggests.
“The modifiable risk factors for intracranial aneurysm are largely unknown. Our findings provided evidence of a causal association between increased serum magnesium levels and reduced risk of intracranial aneurysm,” said Susanna Larsson, PhD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
These results suggest that raising serum magnesium levels – through a magnesium-rich diet or magnesium supplementation – “may play a role in the primary prevention of intracranial aneurysm and associated hemorrhage,” Dr. Larsson added.
The study was published online June 22 in Neurology.
Lower risk for rupture
The researchers leveraged randomly allocated genetic variants related to serum magnesium concentrations in a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to assess whether higher genetically predicted serum magnesium correlates with reduced risk for intracranial aneurysm. They also performed a multivariable MR analysis to assess the role blood pressure might play in this association.
Source data came from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) involving 23,829 individuals that previously identified five single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with serum magnesium. Genetic association estimates for intracranial aneurysm were derived from a GWAS in 79,429 people (7,495 case patients and 71,934 control patients), and genetic association estimates for systolic blood pressure were derived from a GWAS of 757,601 individuals.
The researchers found that higher genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were associated with lower risk for intracranial aneurysm.
The odds ratios per 0.1 mmol/L increment in genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.91) for intracranial aneurysm (unruptured and ruptured combined), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30-1.06) for unruptured intracranial aneurysm, and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.92) for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Adjustment for genetically predicted systolic blood pressure partially attenuated the associations of genetically predicted serum magnesium with all three outcomes, suggesting that magnesium’s influence was at least partially mediated by systolic blood pressure.
“In addition to a blood pressure lowering effect, increased magnesium concentrations may reduce the risk of intracranial aneurysm rupture by improving endothelial function and reducing oxidative stress,” the investigators noted.
They caution that the data were derived from people of European ancestry, which limits the generalizability to other populations. “Caution should be taken when extrapolating findings from MR to infer the effect of a clinical intervention, and clinical trials are warranted to guide optimal practice,” they added.
Critical role in vascular health
In an accompanying editorial, Joanna Pera, MD, PhD, of Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland, and Christopher Anderson, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that the study “adds to our understanding of the importance of magnesium in vascular health particularly related to cerebral aneurysms.”
There is a need for “both mechanistic and potentially therapeutic investigation into the role that magnesium plays in subarachnoid hemorrhage,” they added.
Further, they wrote, the results “raise interesting new questions about the links between circulating magnesium, intracranial aneurysms, and blood pressure. Arterial hypertension is a well-recognized risk factor for intracranial aneurysm development and rupture. Magnesium supplementation may lower blood pressure values.
“Could this mineral prove useful in developing interventions that could prevent intracranial aneurysm development and/or rupture over and above a simple lowering of blood pressure, perhaps through pleiotropic effects on endothelial function or other mechanisms? With these results in hand, work is clearly needed to learn more about the biology of magnesium in the vascular system and in intracranial aneurysm biology in particular,” Dr. Pera and Dr. Anderson concluded.
This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the British Heart Foundation Research Center of Excellence at Imperial College London, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship at St. George’s, University of London. Dr. Larsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Dipender Gill, PhD, is employed part time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Pera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Anderson has received research support from the Bayer AG and has consulted for ApoPharma and Invitae.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The effects may be partially mediated by magnesium’s influence on systolic blood pressure, new research suggests.
“The modifiable risk factors for intracranial aneurysm are largely unknown. Our findings provided evidence of a causal association between increased serum magnesium levels and reduced risk of intracranial aneurysm,” said Susanna Larsson, PhD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
These results suggest that raising serum magnesium levels – through a magnesium-rich diet or magnesium supplementation – “may play a role in the primary prevention of intracranial aneurysm and associated hemorrhage,” Dr. Larsson added.
The study was published online June 22 in Neurology.
Lower risk for rupture
The researchers leveraged randomly allocated genetic variants related to serum magnesium concentrations in a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to assess whether higher genetically predicted serum magnesium correlates with reduced risk for intracranial aneurysm. They also performed a multivariable MR analysis to assess the role blood pressure might play in this association.
Source data came from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) involving 23,829 individuals that previously identified five single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with serum magnesium. Genetic association estimates for intracranial aneurysm were derived from a GWAS in 79,429 people (7,495 case patients and 71,934 control patients), and genetic association estimates for systolic blood pressure were derived from a GWAS of 757,601 individuals.
The researchers found that higher genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were associated with lower risk for intracranial aneurysm.
The odds ratios per 0.1 mmol/L increment in genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.91) for intracranial aneurysm (unruptured and ruptured combined), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30-1.06) for unruptured intracranial aneurysm, and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.92) for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Adjustment for genetically predicted systolic blood pressure partially attenuated the associations of genetically predicted serum magnesium with all three outcomes, suggesting that magnesium’s influence was at least partially mediated by systolic blood pressure.
“In addition to a blood pressure lowering effect, increased magnesium concentrations may reduce the risk of intracranial aneurysm rupture by improving endothelial function and reducing oxidative stress,” the investigators noted.
They caution that the data were derived from people of European ancestry, which limits the generalizability to other populations. “Caution should be taken when extrapolating findings from MR to infer the effect of a clinical intervention, and clinical trials are warranted to guide optimal practice,” they added.
Critical role in vascular health
In an accompanying editorial, Joanna Pera, MD, PhD, of Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland, and Christopher Anderson, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that the study “adds to our understanding of the importance of magnesium in vascular health particularly related to cerebral aneurysms.”
There is a need for “both mechanistic and potentially therapeutic investigation into the role that magnesium plays in subarachnoid hemorrhage,” they added.
Further, they wrote, the results “raise interesting new questions about the links between circulating magnesium, intracranial aneurysms, and blood pressure. Arterial hypertension is a well-recognized risk factor for intracranial aneurysm development and rupture. Magnesium supplementation may lower blood pressure values.
“Could this mineral prove useful in developing interventions that could prevent intracranial aneurysm development and/or rupture over and above a simple lowering of blood pressure, perhaps through pleiotropic effects on endothelial function or other mechanisms? With these results in hand, work is clearly needed to learn more about the biology of magnesium in the vascular system and in intracranial aneurysm biology in particular,” Dr. Pera and Dr. Anderson concluded.
This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the British Heart Foundation Research Center of Excellence at Imperial College London, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship at St. George’s, University of London. Dr. Larsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Dipender Gill, PhD, is employed part time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Pera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Anderson has received research support from the Bayer AG and has consulted for ApoPharma and Invitae.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The effects may be partially mediated by magnesium’s influence on systolic blood pressure, new research suggests.
“The modifiable risk factors for intracranial aneurysm are largely unknown. Our findings provided evidence of a causal association between increased serum magnesium levels and reduced risk of intracranial aneurysm,” said Susanna Larsson, PhD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
These results suggest that raising serum magnesium levels – through a magnesium-rich diet or magnesium supplementation – “may play a role in the primary prevention of intracranial aneurysm and associated hemorrhage,” Dr. Larsson added.
The study was published online June 22 in Neurology.
Lower risk for rupture
The researchers leveraged randomly allocated genetic variants related to serum magnesium concentrations in a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to assess whether higher genetically predicted serum magnesium correlates with reduced risk for intracranial aneurysm. They also performed a multivariable MR analysis to assess the role blood pressure might play in this association.
Source data came from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) involving 23,829 individuals that previously identified five single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with serum magnesium. Genetic association estimates for intracranial aneurysm were derived from a GWAS in 79,429 people (7,495 case patients and 71,934 control patients), and genetic association estimates for systolic blood pressure were derived from a GWAS of 757,601 individuals.
The researchers found that higher genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were associated with lower risk for intracranial aneurysm.
The odds ratios per 0.1 mmol/L increment in genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.91) for intracranial aneurysm (unruptured and ruptured combined), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30-1.06) for unruptured intracranial aneurysm, and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.92) for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Adjustment for genetically predicted systolic blood pressure partially attenuated the associations of genetically predicted serum magnesium with all three outcomes, suggesting that magnesium’s influence was at least partially mediated by systolic blood pressure.
“In addition to a blood pressure lowering effect, increased magnesium concentrations may reduce the risk of intracranial aneurysm rupture by improving endothelial function and reducing oxidative stress,” the investigators noted.
They caution that the data were derived from people of European ancestry, which limits the generalizability to other populations. “Caution should be taken when extrapolating findings from MR to infer the effect of a clinical intervention, and clinical trials are warranted to guide optimal practice,” they added.
Critical role in vascular health
In an accompanying editorial, Joanna Pera, MD, PhD, of Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland, and Christopher Anderson, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that the study “adds to our understanding of the importance of magnesium in vascular health particularly related to cerebral aneurysms.”
There is a need for “both mechanistic and potentially therapeutic investigation into the role that magnesium plays in subarachnoid hemorrhage,” they added.
Further, they wrote, the results “raise interesting new questions about the links between circulating magnesium, intracranial aneurysms, and blood pressure. Arterial hypertension is a well-recognized risk factor for intracranial aneurysm development and rupture. Magnesium supplementation may lower blood pressure values.
“Could this mineral prove useful in developing interventions that could prevent intracranial aneurysm development and/or rupture over and above a simple lowering of blood pressure, perhaps through pleiotropic effects on endothelial function or other mechanisms? With these results in hand, work is clearly needed to learn more about the biology of magnesium in the vascular system and in intracranial aneurysm biology in particular,” Dr. Pera and Dr. Anderson concluded.
This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the British Heart Foundation Research Center of Excellence at Imperial College London, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship at St. George’s, University of London. Dr. Larsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Dipender Gill, PhD, is employed part time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Pera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Anderson has received research support from the Bayer AG and has consulted for ApoPharma and Invitae.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Neurology