User login
Does moderate drinking slow cognitive decline?
new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.
Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Slower cognitive decline
The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.
The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.
Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.
For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.
Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.
One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.
Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.
Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.
Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).
Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
Heavy drinking ‘risky’
Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”
“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.
The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.
A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”
There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.
Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’
The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”
Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.
The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.
The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.
Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.
Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
Balancing act
However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.
“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.
Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.
The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.
A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.
“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
Interpret with caution
Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.
“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.
He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”
With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.
Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.
He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.
He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.
Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.
Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.
Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.
“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.
The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.
Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Slower cognitive decline
The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.
The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.
Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.
For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.
Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.
One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.
Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.
Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.
Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).
Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
Heavy drinking ‘risky’
Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”
“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.
The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.
A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”
There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.
Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’
The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”
Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.
The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.
The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.
Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.
Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
Balancing act
However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.
“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.
Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.
The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.
A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.
“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
Interpret with caution
Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.
“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.
He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”
With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.
Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.
He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.
He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.
Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.
Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.
Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.
“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.
The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.
Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Slower cognitive decline
The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.
The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.
Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.
For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.
Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.
One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.
Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.
Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.
Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).
Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
Heavy drinking ‘risky’
Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”
“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.
The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.
A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”
There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.
Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’
The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”
Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.
The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.
The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.
Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.
Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
Balancing act
However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.
“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.
Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.
The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.
A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.
“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
Interpret with caution
Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.
“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.
He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”
With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.
Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.
He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.
He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.
Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.
Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.
Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.
“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.
The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Can DBS in early Parkinson’s disease reduce disease progression?
According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.
Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.
“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
An extension of a pilot trial
Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.
Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.
Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
DBS may slow progression of rest tremor
Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.
At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.
Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.
In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.
In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.
The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.
The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.
The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”
Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
Effect on dyskinesia is unclear
“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.
“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”
Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.
SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.
According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.
Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.
“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
An extension of a pilot trial
Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.
Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.
Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
DBS may slow progression of rest tremor
Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.
At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.
Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.
In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.
In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.
The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.
The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.
The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”
Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
Effect on dyskinesia is unclear
“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.
“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”
Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.
SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.
According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.
Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.
“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
An extension of a pilot trial
Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.
Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.
Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
DBS may slow progression of rest tremor
Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.
At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.
Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.
In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.
In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.
The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.
The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.
The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”
Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
Effect on dyskinesia is unclear
“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.
“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”
Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.
SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Higher stroke rates seen among patients with COVID-19 compared with influenza
, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.
While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
An increased risk of stroke
The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.
Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.
The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).
This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”
The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).
In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).
The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
COVID or conventional risk factors?
Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”
Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).
He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”
SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.
, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.
While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
An increased risk of stroke
The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.
Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.
The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).
This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”
The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).
In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).
The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
COVID or conventional risk factors?
Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”
Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).
He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”
SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.
, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.
While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
An increased risk of stroke
The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.
Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.
The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).
This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”
The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).
In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).
The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
COVID or conventional risk factors?
Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”
Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).
He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”
SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Three stages to COVID-19 brain damage, new review suggests
In stage 1, viral damage is limited to epithelial cells of the nose and mouth, and in stage 2 blood clots that form in the lungs may travel to the brain, leading to stroke. In stage 3, the virus crosses the blood-brain barrier and invades the brain.
“Our major take-home points are that patients with COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath, headache, or dizziness, may have neurological symptoms that, at the time of hospitalization, might not be noticed or prioritized, or whose neurological symptoms may become apparent only after they leave the hospital,” lead author Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center in McLean, Va., said.
“Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should have a neurological evaluation and ideally a brain MRI before leaving the hospital; and, if there are abnormalities, they should follow up with a neurologist in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Fotuhi, who is also affiliate staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
The review was published online June 8 in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Wreaks CNS havoc
It has become “increasingly evident” that SARS-CoV-2 can cause neurologic manifestations, including anosmia, seizures, stroke, confusion, encephalopathy, and total paralysis, the authors wrote.
They noted that SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2, which facilitates the conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin. After ACE2 has bound to respiratory epithelial cells and then to epithelial cells in blood vessels, SARS-CoV-2 triggers the formation of a “cytokine storm.”
These cytokines, in turn, increase vascular permeability, edema, and widespread inflammation, as well as triggering “hypercoagulation cascades,” which cause small and large blood clots that affect multiple organs.
If SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain barrier, directly entering the brain, it can contribute to demyelination or neurodegeneration.
“We very thoroughly reviewed the literature published between Jan. 1 and May 1, 2020, about neurological issues [in COVID-19] and what I found interesting is that so many neurological things can happen due to a virus which is so small,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“This virus’ DNA has such limited information, and yet it can wreak havoc on our nervous system because it kicks off such a potent defense system in our body that damages our nervous system,” he said.
Three-stage classification
- Stage 1: The extent of SARS-CoV-2 binding to the ACE2 receptors is limited to the nasal and gustatory epithelial cells, with the cytokine storm remaining “low and controlled.” During this stage, patients may experience smell or taste impairments, but often recover without any interventions.
- Stage 2: A “robust immune response” is activated by the virus, leading to inflammation in the blood vessels, increased hypercoagulability factors, and the formation of blood clots in cerebral arteries and veins. The patient may therefore experience either large or small strokes. Additional stage 2 symptoms include fatigue, hemiplegia, sensory loss, , tetraplegia, , or ataxia.
- Stage 3: The cytokine storm in the blood vessels is so severe that it causes an “explosive inflammatory response” and penetrates the blood-brain barrier, leading to the entry of cytokines, blood components, and viral particles into the brain parenchyma and causing neuronal cell death and encephalitis. This stage can be characterized by seizures, confusion, , coma, loss of consciousness, or death.
“Patients in stage 3 are more likely to have long-term consequences, because there is evidence that the virus particles have actually penetrated the brain, and we know that SARS-CoV-2 can remain dormant in neurons for many years,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“Studies of coronaviruses have shown a link between the viruses and the risk of multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease even decades later,” he added.
“Based on several reports in recent months, between 36% to 55% of patients with COVID-19 that are hospitalized have some neurological symptoms, but if you don’t look for them, you won’t see them,” Dr. Fotuhi noted.
As a result, patients should be monitored over time after discharge, as they may develop cognitive dysfunction down the road.
Additionally, “it is imperative for patients [hospitalized with COVID-19] to get a baseline MRI before leaving the hospital so that we have a starting point for future evaluation and treatment,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“The good news is that neurological manifestations of COVID-19 are treatable,” and “can improve with intensive training,” including lifestyle changes – such as a heart-healthy diet, regular physical activity, stress reduction, improved sleep, biofeedback, and brain rehabilitation, Dr. Fotuhi added.
Routine MRI not necessary
Kenneth Tyler, MD, chair of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, disagreed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should routinely receive an MRI.
“Whenever you are using a piece of equipment on patients who are COVID-19 infected, you risk introducing the infection to uninfected patients,” he said. Instead, “the indication is in patients who develop unexplained neurological manifestations – altered mental status or focal seizures, for example – because in those cases, you do need to understand whether there are underlying structural abnormalities,” said Dr. Tyler, who was not involved in the review.
Also commenting on the review, Vanja Douglas, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology, University of California, San Francisco, described the review as “thorough” and suggested it may “help us understand how to design observational studies to test whether the associations are due to severe respiratory illness or are specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Dr. Douglas, who was not involved in the review, added that it is “helpful in giving us a sense of which neurologic syndromes have been observed in COVID-19 patients, and therefore which patients neurologists may want to screen more carefully during the pandemic.”
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Fotuhi disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor reported receiving consulting fees as a member of the scientific advisory board for Brainreader and reports royalties for expert witness consultation in conjunction with Neurevolution. Dr. Tyler and Dr. Douglas disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In stage 1, viral damage is limited to epithelial cells of the nose and mouth, and in stage 2 blood clots that form in the lungs may travel to the brain, leading to stroke. In stage 3, the virus crosses the blood-brain barrier and invades the brain.
“Our major take-home points are that patients with COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath, headache, or dizziness, may have neurological symptoms that, at the time of hospitalization, might not be noticed or prioritized, or whose neurological symptoms may become apparent only after they leave the hospital,” lead author Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center in McLean, Va., said.
“Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should have a neurological evaluation and ideally a brain MRI before leaving the hospital; and, if there are abnormalities, they should follow up with a neurologist in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Fotuhi, who is also affiliate staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
The review was published online June 8 in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Wreaks CNS havoc
It has become “increasingly evident” that SARS-CoV-2 can cause neurologic manifestations, including anosmia, seizures, stroke, confusion, encephalopathy, and total paralysis, the authors wrote.
They noted that SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2, which facilitates the conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin. After ACE2 has bound to respiratory epithelial cells and then to epithelial cells in blood vessels, SARS-CoV-2 triggers the formation of a “cytokine storm.”
These cytokines, in turn, increase vascular permeability, edema, and widespread inflammation, as well as triggering “hypercoagulation cascades,” which cause small and large blood clots that affect multiple organs.
If SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain barrier, directly entering the brain, it can contribute to demyelination or neurodegeneration.
“We very thoroughly reviewed the literature published between Jan. 1 and May 1, 2020, about neurological issues [in COVID-19] and what I found interesting is that so many neurological things can happen due to a virus which is so small,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“This virus’ DNA has such limited information, and yet it can wreak havoc on our nervous system because it kicks off such a potent defense system in our body that damages our nervous system,” he said.
Three-stage classification
- Stage 1: The extent of SARS-CoV-2 binding to the ACE2 receptors is limited to the nasal and gustatory epithelial cells, with the cytokine storm remaining “low and controlled.” During this stage, patients may experience smell or taste impairments, but often recover without any interventions.
- Stage 2: A “robust immune response” is activated by the virus, leading to inflammation in the blood vessels, increased hypercoagulability factors, and the formation of blood clots in cerebral arteries and veins. The patient may therefore experience either large or small strokes. Additional stage 2 symptoms include fatigue, hemiplegia, sensory loss, , tetraplegia, , or ataxia.
- Stage 3: The cytokine storm in the blood vessels is so severe that it causes an “explosive inflammatory response” and penetrates the blood-brain barrier, leading to the entry of cytokines, blood components, and viral particles into the brain parenchyma and causing neuronal cell death and encephalitis. This stage can be characterized by seizures, confusion, , coma, loss of consciousness, or death.
“Patients in stage 3 are more likely to have long-term consequences, because there is evidence that the virus particles have actually penetrated the brain, and we know that SARS-CoV-2 can remain dormant in neurons for many years,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“Studies of coronaviruses have shown a link between the viruses and the risk of multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease even decades later,” he added.
“Based on several reports in recent months, between 36% to 55% of patients with COVID-19 that are hospitalized have some neurological symptoms, but if you don’t look for them, you won’t see them,” Dr. Fotuhi noted.
As a result, patients should be monitored over time after discharge, as they may develop cognitive dysfunction down the road.
Additionally, “it is imperative for patients [hospitalized with COVID-19] to get a baseline MRI before leaving the hospital so that we have a starting point for future evaluation and treatment,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“The good news is that neurological manifestations of COVID-19 are treatable,” and “can improve with intensive training,” including lifestyle changes – such as a heart-healthy diet, regular physical activity, stress reduction, improved sleep, biofeedback, and brain rehabilitation, Dr. Fotuhi added.
Routine MRI not necessary
Kenneth Tyler, MD, chair of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, disagreed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should routinely receive an MRI.
“Whenever you are using a piece of equipment on patients who are COVID-19 infected, you risk introducing the infection to uninfected patients,” he said. Instead, “the indication is in patients who develop unexplained neurological manifestations – altered mental status or focal seizures, for example – because in those cases, you do need to understand whether there are underlying structural abnormalities,” said Dr. Tyler, who was not involved in the review.
Also commenting on the review, Vanja Douglas, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology, University of California, San Francisco, described the review as “thorough” and suggested it may “help us understand how to design observational studies to test whether the associations are due to severe respiratory illness or are specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Dr. Douglas, who was not involved in the review, added that it is “helpful in giving us a sense of which neurologic syndromes have been observed in COVID-19 patients, and therefore which patients neurologists may want to screen more carefully during the pandemic.”
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Fotuhi disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor reported receiving consulting fees as a member of the scientific advisory board for Brainreader and reports royalties for expert witness consultation in conjunction with Neurevolution. Dr. Tyler and Dr. Douglas disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In stage 1, viral damage is limited to epithelial cells of the nose and mouth, and in stage 2 blood clots that form in the lungs may travel to the brain, leading to stroke. In stage 3, the virus crosses the blood-brain barrier and invades the brain.
“Our major take-home points are that patients with COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath, headache, or dizziness, may have neurological symptoms that, at the time of hospitalization, might not be noticed or prioritized, or whose neurological symptoms may become apparent only after they leave the hospital,” lead author Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center in McLean, Va., said.
“Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should have a neurological evaluation and ideally a brain MRI before leaving the hospital; and, if there are abnormalities, they should follow up with a neurologist in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Fotuhi, who is also affiliate staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
The review was published online June 8 in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Wreaks CNS havoc
It has become “increasingly evident” that SARS-CoV-2 can cause neurologic manifestations, including anosmia, seizures, stroke, confusion, encephalopathy, and total paralysis, the authors wrote.
They noted that SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2, which facilitates the conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin. After ACE2 has bound to respiratory epithelial cells and then to epithelial cells in blood vessels, SARS-CoV-2 triggers the formation of a “cytokine storm.”
These cytokines, in turn, increase vascular permeability, edema, and widespread inflammation, as well as triggering “hypercoagulation cascades,” which cause small and large blood clots that affect multiple organs.
If SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain barrier, directly entering the brain, it can contribute to demyelination or neurodegeneration.
“We very thoroughly reviewed the literature published between Jan. 1 and May 1, 2020, about neurological issues [in COVID-19] and what I found interesting is that so many neurological things can happen due to a virus which is so small,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“This virus’ DNA has such limited information, and yet it can wreak havoc on our nervous system because it kicks off such a potent defense system in our body that damages our nervous system,” he said.
Three-stage classification
- Stage 1: The extent of SARS-CoV-2 binding to the ACE2 receptors is limited to the nasal and gustatory epithelial cells, with the cytokine storm remaining “low and controlled.” During this stage, patients may experience smell or taste impairments, but often recover without any interventions.
- Stage 2: A “robust immune response” is activated by the virus, leading to inflammation in the blood vessels, increased hypercoagulability factors, and the formation of blood clots in cerebral arteries and veins. The patient may therefore experience either large or small strokes. Additional stage 2 symptoms include fatigue, hemiplegia, sensory loss, , tetraplegia, , or ataxia.
- Stage 3: The cytokine storm in the blood vessels is so severe that it causes an “explosive inflammatory response” and penetrates the blood-brain barrier, leading to the entry of cytokines, blood components, and viral particles into the brain parenchyma and causing neuronal cell death and encephalitis. This stage can be characterized by seizures, confusion, , coma, loss of consciousness, or death.
“Patients in stage 3 are more likely to have long-term consequences, because there is evidence that the virus particles have actually penetrated the brain, and we know that SARS-CoV-2 can remain dormant in neurons for many years,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“Studies of coronaviruses have shown a link between the viruses and the risk of multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease even decades later,” he added.
“Based on several reports in recent months, between 36% to 55% of patients with COVID-19 that are hospitalized have some neurological symptoms, but if you don’t look for them, you won’t see them,” Dr. Fotuhi noted.
As a result, patients should be monitored over time after discharge, as they may develop cognitive dysfunction down the road.
Additionally, “it is imperative for patients [hospitalized with COVID-19] to get a baseline MRI before leaving the hospital so that we have a starting point for future evaluation and treatment,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“The good news is that neurological manifestations of COVID-19 are treatable,” and “can improve with intensive training,” including lifestyle changes – such as a heart-healthy diet, regular physical activity, stress reduction, improved sleep, biofeedback, and brain rehabilitation, Dr. Fotuhi added.
Routine MRI not necessary
Kenneth Tyler, MD, chair of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, disagreed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should routinely receive an MRI.
“Whenever you are using a piece of equipment on patients who are COVID-19 infected, you risk introducing the infection to uninfected patients,” he said. Instead, “the indication is in patients who develop unexplained neurological manifestations – altered mental status or focal seizures, for example – because in those cases, you do need to understand whether there are underlying structural abnormalities,” said Dr. Tyler, who was not involved in the review.
Also commenting on the review, Vanja Douglas, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology, University of California, San Francisco, described the review as “thorough” and suggested it may “help us understand how to design observational studies to test whether the associations are due to severe respiratory illness or are specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Dr. Douglas, who was not involved in the review, added that it is “helpful in giving us a sense of which neurologic syndromes have been observed in COVID-19 patients, and therefore which patients neurologists may want to screen more carefully during the pandemic.”
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Fotuhi disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor reported receiving consulting fees as a member of the scientific advisory board for Brainreader and reports royalties for expert witness consultation in conjunction with Neurevolution. Dr. Tyler and Dr. Douglas disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Intervention for AVM still too high risk: The latest from ARUBA
Enrollment into the trial, which compared medical management alone with medical management with interventional therapy (neurosurgery, embolization, or stereotactic radiotherapy, alone or in combination), was stopped prematurely in 2013 after 33 months of follow-up because of a much higher rate of death and stroke in the intervention group.
Reaffirming the benefit of no intervention
Now the investigators are reporting extended follow-up to 50 months. The results were very similar to those at 33 months.
The current 50-month follow-up results show that 15 of 110 patients in the medical group had died or had a stroke (3.39 per 100 patient-years) versus 41 of 116 (12.32 per 100 patient-years) in the intervention group. The results reaffirm the strong benefit of not undergoing intervention (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56).
These latest results were published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
“With an AVM, the natural reflex is to try and fix it, but our trial shows that the tools we have to do that seem to be more damaging than just living with the AVM. If we try to take it out, the stroke risk is three to five times higher than just leaving it alone,” coauthor Christian Stapf, MD, a professor at the University of Montreal, said in an interview.
Dr. Stapf explained that an AVM is a congenital abnormality in the linking of the arteries to the veins. “There are an excess number of arteries and veins. They usually sit there silently, but they can trigger seizures, as they can tickle the neurons in the vicinity.”
It is estimated that one to two AVMs are found spontaneously in every 100,000 persons every year, but this is dependent on the availability of MRI, and many go undetected, he noted. In MRI studies in healthy volunteers, the rate was about one AVM in every 2,000 individuals.
Challenging standard practice
With AVMs, rupture and intracerebral hemorrhage occur at a rate of about 1%-2% per year. Until the ARUBA results were published, the standard practice was to intervene to embolize or excise the malformation, Dr. Stapf said.
“The standard treatment was intervention. The experiment was not to do it. We were challenging standard practice, and the trial was not popular with interventionalists,” he said.
The initial study, which was published in 2014, received much criticism from the interventionalist community. Among the criticisms were that the selection criteria for enrollment limited its generalizability, fewer patients than expected in the intervention arm were referred for microvascular surgery, and the follow-up was too short to allow a meaningful comparison.
“The study received criticism, but this was mainly from interventionalists, who were having their income threatened,” Dr. Stapf said. “This was very unhappy news for them, especially in the U.S., with the fee-for-service system.”
But he says these longer-term results, together with additional analyses and data from other cohorts, reinforce their initial conclusions.
The current report also shows a benefit in functional outcome in the medical group. “After 5 years, patients are twice as likely to have a neurological handicap, defined as a score of 2 or higher on the modified Rankin scale in the intervention group,” he noted. “We also found that more patients in the intervention group had deficits not related to stroke, such as an increase in seizures.”
Results of subgroup analysis were consistent in all patient groups.
The “study was designed for 400 patients, but we only recruited about half that number. But even so, the effect of intervention on stroke is so strong there is no subgroup where it looks favorable,” Dr. Stapf said. “This result was not heterogeneous. The same effect is seen regardless of age, gender, presence of symptoms, size of AVM, location, anatomy, drainage. No matter how you look, there is no benefit for intervention.”
He also referred to a Scottish population-based cohort study that showed a similar risk reduction from not intervening. “This was an unselected population of every unruptured AVM patient in Scotland, which found a 65% relative reduction in death/stroke over 12 years. We found a 69% reduction. The Scottish study did not select any particular types of patients but showed the same result as us,” he noted. “It is hard to argue against these findings.”
Regarding the claim of selection bias, Dr. Stapf acknowledged that the study excluded patients who were judged to be in need of intervention and those judged to be at very low risk and who would not be considered for an intervention.
“But when we compared our cohort to two other unselected cohorts, they look very similar, apart from the fact that very large AVMs were not entered in our study, as they were considered too difficult to treat,” he said. “If there is a selection bias at all, it actually trends towards the intervention group, as we excluded those at the highest treatment risk, but we still showed more benefit of not intervening.”
He also says the microvascular surgery rates were consistent with real-world practice, with about 25% of patients undergoing such surgery. “This is similar to the Scottish population study. Our trial also showed a similar result in patients treated with the various different interventions – they all showed a much higher risk than not intervening,” he added.
He says practice has changed since the trial was first reported. “There are far fewer interventions now for unruptured AVMs. Most interventionalists have accepted the results now, although there are some who continue to find reasons to criticize the trial and carry on with the procedures.”
He says his advice to patients who have an unruptured AVM is to forget about it. “There doesn’t seem to be a trigger for rupture,” he said. “It doesn’t seem to be dependent on blood pressure or physical activity, and we can’t tell if it’s just about to go by looking at it. They are very different from an aneurysm in that regard.
“When I explain to patients that they are at an increased stroke risk and tell them about the results of the ARUBA study, they say they would prefer to get that stroke later in life than earlier. These patents can live for 30 or 40 years without a stroke.
“But, yes, there remains a major unmet need. We need to find a way to protect these patients. In future, we might find a better way of intervening, but at this point in time, the treatment we have is more dangerous than doing nothing,” he said.
Longer follow-up needed
In an editorial that accompanies the current study, Peter M. Rothwell, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, also dismisses much of the criticism of the ARUBA study. On the issue of external validity, he said: “I do not think that this is really any greater an issue for ARUBA than for most other similar trials.”
But Dr. Rothwell does believe that follow-up for longer than 5 years is needed. “To really understand the benefit/risk balance, we would need a 20- or 30-year follow-up. These patients are often in their 20s, 30s, or 40s, so we really need to know their cumulative risk over decades,” he said in an interview.
Noting that the study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Dr. Rothwell said funding should have been provided for much longer follow-up. “Patients who generously agreed to be randomly assigned in ARUBA and future similar patients have been let down by NINDS.
“We probably now won’t ever know the very–long-term impact, although the Scottish population study is following patients longer term,” he added.
“After this trial was first published, the guidelines recommended not to intervene. These latest results will not change that,” he said.
The ARUBA trial was funded internationally by the National Institutes of Health/NINDS. Dr. Stapf and Dr. Rothwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Enrollment into the trial, which compared medical management alone with medical management with interventional therapy (neurosurgery, embolization, or stereotactic radiotherapy, alone or in combination), was stopped prematurely in 2013 after 33 months of follow-up because of a much higher rate of death and stroke in the intervention group.
Reaffirming the benefit of no intervention
Now the investigators are reporting extended follow-up to 50 months. The results were very similar to those at 33 months.
The current 50-month follow-up results show that 15 of 110 patients in the medical group had died or had a stroke (3.39 per 100 patient-years) versus 41 of 116 (12.32 per 100 patient-years) in the intervention group. The results reaffirm the strong benefit of not undergoing intervention (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56).
These latest results were published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
“With an AVM, the natural reflex is to try and fix it, but our trial shows that the tools we have to do that seem to be more damaging than just living with the AVM. If we try to take it out, the stroke risk is three to five times higher than just leaving it alone,” coauthor Christian Stapf, MD, a professor at the University of Montreal, said in an interview.
Dr. Stapf explained that an AVM is a congenital abnormality in the linking of the arteries to the veins. “There are an excess number of arteries and veins. They usually sit there silently, but they can trigger seizures, as they can tickle the neurons in the vicinity.”
It is estimated that one to two AVMs are found spontaneously in every 100,000 persons every year, but this is dependent on the availability of MRI, and many go undetected, he noted. In MRI studies in healthy volunteers, the rate was about one AVM in every 2,000 individuals.
Challenging standard practice
With AVMs, rupture and intracerebral hemorrhage occur at a rate of about 1%-2% per year. Until the ARUBA results were published, the standard practice was to intervene to embolize or excise the malformation, Dr. Stapf said.
“The standard treatment was intervention. The experiment was not to do it. We were challenging standard practice, and the trial was not popular with interventionalists,” he said.
The initial study, which was published in 2014, received much criticism from the interventionalist community. Among the criticisms were that the selection criteria for enrollment limited its generalizability, fewer patients than expected in the intervention arm were referred for microvascular surgery, and the follow-up was too short to allow a meaningful comparison.
“The study received criticism, but this was mainly from interventionalists, who were having their income threatened,” Dr. Stapf said. “This was very unhappy news for them, especially in the U.S., with the fee-for-service system.”
But he says these longer-term results, together with additional analyses and data from other cohorts, reinforce their initial conclusions.
The current report also shows a benefit in functional outcome in the medical group. “After 5 years, patients are twice as likely to have a neurological handicap, defined as a score of 2 or higher on the modified Rankin scale in the intervention group,” he noted. “We also found that more patients in the intervention group had deficits not related to stroke, such as an increase in seizures.”
Results of subgroup analysis were consistent in all patient groups.
The “study was designed for 400 patients, but we only recruited about half that number. But even so, the effect of intervention on stroke is so strong there is no subgroup where it looks favorable,” Dr. Stapf said. “This result was not heterogeneous. The same effect is seen regardless of age, gender, presence of symptoms, size of AVM, location, anatomy, drainage. No matter how you look, there is no benefit for intervention.”
He also referred to a Scottish population-based cohort study that showed a similar risk reduction from not intervening. “This was an unselected population of every unruptured AVM patient in Scotland, which found a 65% relative reduction in death/stroke over 12 years. We found a 69% reduction. The Scottish study did not select any particular types of patients but showed the same result as us,” he noted. “It is hard to argue against these findings.”
Regarding the claim of selection bias, Dr. Stapf acknowledged that the study excluded patients who were judged to be in need of intervention and those judged to be at very low risk and who would not be considered for an intervention.
“But when we compared our cohort to two other unselected cohorts, they look very similar, apart from the fact that very large AVMs were not entered in our study, as they were considered too difficult to treat,” he said. “If there is a selection bias at all, it actually trends towards the intervention group, as we excluded those at the highest treatment risk, but we still showed more benefit of not intervening.”
He also says the microvascular surgery rates were consistent with real-world practice, with about 25% of patients undergoing such surgery. “This is similar to the Scottish population study. Our trial also showed a similar result in patients treated with the various different interventions – they all showed a much higher risk than not intervening,” he added.
He says practice has changed since the trial was first reported. “There are far fewer interventions now for unruptured AVMs. Most interventionalists have accepted the results now, although there are some who continue to find reasons to criticize the trial and carry on with the procedures.”
He says his advice to patients who have an unruptured AVM is to forget about it. “There doesn’t seem to be a trigger for rupture,” he said. “It doesn’t seem to be dependent on blood pressure or physical activity, and we can’t tell if it’s just about to go by looking at it. They are very different from an aneurysm in that regard.
“When I explain to patients that they are at an increased stroke risk and tell them about the results of the ARUBA study, they say they would prefer to get that stroke later in life than earlier. These patents can live for 30 or 40 years without a stroke.
“But, yes, there remains a major unmet need. We need to find a way to protect these patients. In future, we might find a better way of intervening, but at this point in time, the treatment we have is more dangerous than doing nothing,” he said.
Longer follow-up needed
In an editorial that accompanies the current study, Peter M. Rothwell, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, also dismisses much of the criticism of the ARUBA study. On the issue of external validity, he said: “I do not think that this is really any greater an issue for ARUBA than for most other similar trials.”
But Dr. Rothwell does believe that follow-up for longer than 5 years is needed. “To really understand the benefit/risk balance, we would need a 20- or 30-year follow-up. These patients are often in their 20s, 30s, or 40s, so we really need to know their cumulative risk over decades,” he said in an interview.
Noting that the study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Dr. Rothwell said funding should have been provided for much longer follow-up. “Patients who generously agreed to be randomly assigned in ARUBA and future similar patients have been let down by NINDS.
“We probably now won’t ever know the very–long-term impact, although the Scottish population study is following patients longer term,” he added.
“After this trial was first published, the guidelines recommended not to intervene. These latest results will not change that,” he said.
The ARUBA trial was funded internationally by the National Institutes of Health/NINDS. Dr. Stapf and Dr. Rothwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Enrollment into the trial, which compared medical management alone with medical management with interventional therapy (neurosurgery, embolization, or stereotactic radiotherapy, alone or in combination), was stopped prematurely in 2013 after 33 months of follow-up because of a much higher rate of death and stroke in the intervention group.
Reaffirming the benefit of no intervention
Now the investigators are reporting extended follow-up to 50 months. The results were very similar to those at 33 months.
The current 50-month follow-up results show that 15 of 110 patients in the medical group had died or had a stroke (3.39 per 100 patient-years) versus 41 of 116 (12.32 per 100 patient-years) in the intervention group. The results reaffirm the strong benefit of not undergoing intervention (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56).
These latest results were published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
“With an AVM, the natural reflex is to try and fix it, but our trial shows that the tools we have to do that seem to be more damaging than just living with the AVM. If we try to take it out, the stroke risk is three to five times higher than just leaving it alone,” coauthor Christian Stapf, MD, a professor at the University of Montreal, said in an interview.
Dr. Stapf explained that an AVM is a congenital abnormality in the linking of the arteries to the veins. “There are an excess number of arteries and veins. They usually sit there silently, but they can trigger seizures, as they can tickle the neurons in the vicinity.”
It is estimated that one to two AVMs are found spontaneously in every 100,000 persons every year, but this is dependent on the availability of MRI, and many go undetected, he noted. In MRI studies in healthy volunteers, the rate was about one AVM in every 2,000 individuals.
Challenging standard practice
With AVMs, rupture and intracerebral hemorrhage occur at a rate of about 1%-2% per year. Until the ARUBA results were published, the standard practice was to intervene to embolize or excise the malformation, Dr. Stapf said.
“The standard treatment was intervention. The experiment was not to do it. We were challenging standard practice, and the trial was not popular with interventionalists,” he said.
The initial study, which was published in 2014, received much criticism from the interventionalist community. Among the criticisms were that the selection criteria for enrollment limited its generalizability, fewer patients than expected in the intervention arm were referred for microvascular surgery, and the follow-up was too short to allow a meaningful comparison.
“The study received criticism, but this was mainly from interventionalists, who were having their income threatened,” Dr. Stapf said. “This was very unhappy news for them, especially in the U.S., with the fee-for-service system.”
But he says these longer-term results, together with additional analyses and data from other cohorts, reinforce their initial conclusions.
The current report also shows a benefit in functional outcome in the medical group. “After 5 years, patients are twice as likely to have a neurological handicap, defined as a score of 2 or higher on the modified Rankin scale in the intervention group,” he noted. “We also found that more patients in the intervention group had deficits not related to stroke, such as an increase in seizures.”
Results of subgroup analysis were consistent in all patient groups.
The “study was designed for 400 patients, but we only recruited about half that number. But even so, the effect of intervention on stroke is so strong there is no subgroup where it looks favorable,” Dr. Stapf said. “This result was not heterogeneous. The same effect is seen regardless of age, gender, presence of symptoms, size of AVM, location, anatomy, drainage. No matter how you look, there is no benefit for intervention.”
He also referred to a Scottish population-based cohort study that showed a similar risk reduction from not intervening. “This was an unselected population of every unruptured AVM patient in Scotland, which found a 65% relative reduction in death/stroke over 12 years. We found a 69% reduction. The Scottish study did not select any particular types of patients but showed the same result as us,” he noted. “It is hard to argue against these findings.”
Regarding the claim of selection bias, Dr. Stapf acknowledged that the study excluded patients who were judged to be in need of intervention and those judged to be at very low risk and who would not be considered for an intervention.
“But when we compared our cohort to two other unselected cohorts, they look very similar, apart from the fact that very large AVMs were not entered in our study, as they were considered too difficult to treat,” he said. “If there is a selection bias at all, it actually trends towards the intervention group, as we excluded those at the highest treatment risk, but we still showed more benefit of not intervening.”
He also says the microvascular surgery rates were consistent with real-world practice, with about 25% of patients undergoing such surgery. “This is similar to the Scottish population study. Our trial also showed a similar result in patients treated with the various different interventions – they all showed a much higher risk than not intervening,” he added.
He says practice has changed since the trial was first reported. “There are far fewer interventions now for unruptured AVMs. Most interventionalists have accepted the results now, although there are some who continue to find reasons to criticize the trial and carry on with the procedures.”
He says his advice to patients who have an unruptured AVM is to forget about it. “There doesn’t seem to be a trigger for rupture,” he said. “It doesn’t seem to be dependent on blood pressure or physical activity, and we can’t tell if it’s just about to go by looking at it. They are very different from an aneurysm in that regard.
“When I explain to patients that they are at an increased stroke risk and tell them about the results of the ARUBA study, they say they would prefer to get that stroke later in life than earlier. These patents can live for 30 or 40 years without a stroke.
“But, yes, there remains a major unmet need. We need to find a way to protect these patients. In future, we might find a better way of intervening, but at this point in time, the treatment we have is more dangerous than doing nothing,” he said.
Longer follow-up needed
In an editorial that accompanies the current study, Peter M. Rothwell, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, also dismisses much of the criticism of the ARUBA study. On the issue of external validity, he said: “I do not think that this is really any greater an issue for ARUBA than for most other similar trials.”
But Dr. Rothwell does believe that follow-up for longer than 5 years is needed. “To really understand the benefit/risk balance, we would need a 20- or 30-year follow-up. These patients are often in their 20s, 30s, or 40s, so we really need to know their cumulative risk over decades,” he said in an interview.
Noting that the study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Dr. Rothwell said funding should have been provided for much longer follow-up. “Patients who generously agreed to be randomly assigned in ARUBA and future similar patients have been let down by NINDS.
“We probably now won’t ever know the very–long-term impact, although the Scottish population study is following patients longer term,” he added.
“After this trial was first published, the guidelines recommended not to intervene. These latest results will not change that,” he said.
The ARUBA trial was funded internationally by the National Institutes of Health/NINDS. Dr. Stapf and Dr. Rothwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM LANCET NEUROLOGY
FDA approves new treatment for Dravet syndrome
Dravet syndrome is a rare childhood-onset epilepsy characterized by frequent, drug-resistant convulsive seizures that may contribute to intellectual disability and impairments in motor control, behavior, and cognition, as well as an increased risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP).
Dravet syndrome takes a “tremendous toll on both patients and their families. Fintepla offers an additional effective treatment option for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.
The FDA approved fenfluramine for Dravet syndrome based on the results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials involving children ages 2 to 18 years with Dravet syndrome.
In both studies, children treated with fenfluramine experienced significantly greater reductions in the frequency of convulsive seizures than did their peers who received placebo. These reductions occurred within 3 to 4 weeks, and remained generally consistent over the 14- to 15-week treatment periods, the FDA said.
“There remains a huge unmet need for the many Dravet syndrome patients who continue to experience frequent severe seizures even while taking one or more of the currently available antiseizure medications,” Joseph Sullivan, MD, who worked on the fenfluramine for Dravet syndrome studies, said in a news release.
Given the “profound reductions” in convulsive seizure frequency seen in the clinical trials, combined with the “ongoing, robust safety monitoring,” fenfluramine offers “an extremely important treatment option for Dravet syndrome patients,” said Dr. Sullivan, director of the Pediatric Epilepsy Center of Excellence at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Benioff Children’s Hospital.
Fenfluramine is an anorectic agent that was used to treat obesity until it was removed from the market in 1997 over reports of increased risk of valvular heart disease when prescribed in higher doses and most often when prescribed with phentermine. The combination of the two drugs was known as fen-phen.
In the clinical trials of Dravet syndrome, the most common adverse reactions were decreased appetite; somnolence, sedation, lethargy; diarrhea; constipation; abnormal echocardiogram; fatigue, malaise, asthenia; ataxia, balance disorder, gait disturbance; increased blood pressure; drooling, salivary hypersecretion; pyrexia; upper respiratory tract infection; vomiting; decreased weight; fall; and status epilepticus.
The Fintepla label has a boxed warning stating that the drug is associated with valvular heart disease (VHD) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Due to these risks, patients must undergo echocardiography before treatment, every 6 months during treatment, and once 3 to 6 months after treatment is stopped.
If signs of VHD, PAH, or other cardiac abnormalities are present, clinicians should weigh the benefits and risks of continuing treatment with Fintepla, the FDA said.
Fintepla is available only through a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program, which requires physicians who prescribe the drug and pharmacies that dispense it to be certified in the Fintepla REMS and that patients be enrolled in the program.
As part of the REMS requirements, prescribers and patients must adhere to the required cardiac monitoring to receive the drug.
Fintepla will be available to certified prescribers in the United States in July. Zogenix is launching Zogenix Central, a comprehensive support service that will provide ongoing product assistance to patients, caregivers, and their medical teams. Further information is available online.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dravet syndrome is a rare childhood-onset epilepsy characterized by frequent, drug-resistant convulsive seizures that may contribute to intellectual disability and impairments in motor control, behavior, and cognition, as well as an increased risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP).
Dravet syndrome takes a “tremendous toll on both patients and their families. Fintepla offers an additional effective treatment option for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.
The FDA approved fenfluramine for Dravet syndrome based on the results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials involving children ages 2 to 18 years with Dravet syndrome.
In both studies, children treated with fenfluramine experienced significantly greater reductions in the frequency of convulsive seizures than did their peers who received placebo. These reductions occurred within 3 to 4 weeks, and remained generally consistent over the 14- to 15-week treatment periods, the FDA said.
“There remains a huge unmet need for the many Dravet syndrome patients who continue to experience frequent severe seizures even while taking one or more of the currently available antiseizure medications,” Joseph Sullivan, MD, who worked on the fenfluramine for Dravet syndrome studies, said in a news release.
Given the “profound reductions” in convulsive seizure frequency seen in the clinical trials, combined with the “ongoing, robust safety monitoring,” fenfluramine offers “an extremely important treatment option for Dravet syndrome patients,” said Dr. Sullivan, director of the Pediatric Epilepsy Center of Excellence at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Benioff Children’s Hospital.
Fenfluramine is an anorectic agent that was used to treat obesity until it was removed from the market in 1997 over reports of increased risk of valvular heart disease when prescribed in higher doses and most often when prescribed with phentermine. The combination of the two drugs was known as fen-phen.
In the clinical trials of Dravet syndrome, the most common adverse reactions were decreased appetite; somnolence, sedation, lethargy; diarrhea; constipation; abnormal echocardiogram; fatigue, malaise, asthenia; ataxia, balance disorder, gait disturbance; increased blood pressure; drooling, salivary hypersecretion; pyrexia; upper respiratory tract infection; vomiting; decreased weight; fall; and status epilepticus.
The Fintepla label has a boxed warning stating that the drug is associated with valvular heart disease (VHD) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Due to these risks, patients must undergo echocardiography before treatment, every 6 months during treatment, and once 3 to 6 months after treatment is stopped.
If signs of VHD, PAH, or other cardiac abnormalities are present, clinicians should weigh the benefits and risks of continuing treatment with Fintepla, the FDA said.
Fintepla is available only through a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program, which requires physicians who prescribe the drug and pharmacies that dispense it to be certified in the Fintepla REMS and that patients be enrolled in the program.
As part of the REMS requirements, prescribers and patients must adhere to the required cardiac monitoring to receive the drug.
Fintepla will be available to certified prescribers in the United States in July. Zogenix is launching Zogenix Central, a comprehensive support service that will provide ongoing product assistance to patients, caregivers, and their medical teams. Further information is available online.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dravet syndrome is a rare childhood-onset epilepsy characterized by frequent, drug-resistant convulsive seizures that may contribute to intellectual disability and impairments in motor control, behavior, and cognition, as well as an increased risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP).
Dravet syndrome takes a “tremendous toll on both patients and their families. Fintepla offers an additional effective treatment option for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.
The FDA approved fenfluramine for Dravet syndrome based on the results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials involving children ages 2 to 18 years with Dravet syndrome.
In both studies, children treated with fenfluramine experienced significantly greater reductions in the frequency of convulsive seizures than did their peers who received placebo. These reductions occurred within 3 to 4 weeks, and remained generally consistent over the 14- to 15-week treatment periods, the FDA said.
“There remains a huge unmet need for the many Dravet syndrome patients who continue to experience frequent severe seizures even while taking one or more of the currently available antiseizure medications,” Joseph Sullivan, MD, who worked on the fenfluramine for Dravet syndrome studies, said in a news release.
Given the “profound reductions” in convulsive seizure frequency seen in the clinical trials, combined with the “ongoing, robust safety monitoring,” fenfluramine offers “an extremely important treatment option for Dravet syndrome patients,” said Dr. Sullivan, director of the Pediatric Epilepsy Center of Excellence at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Benioff Children’s Hospital.
Fenfluramine is an anorectic agent that was used to treat obesity until it was removed from the market in 1997 over reports of increased risk of valvular heart disease when prescribed in higher doses and most often when prescribed with phentermine. The combination of the two drugs was known as fen-phen.
In the clinical trials of Dravet syndrome, the most common adverse reactions were decreased appetite; somnolence, sedation, lethargy; diarrhea; constipation; abnormal echocardiogram; fatigue, malaise, asthenia; ataxia, balance disorder, gait disturbance; increased blood pressure; drooling, salivary hypersecretion; pyrexia; upper respiratory tract infection; vomiting; decreased weight; fall; and status epilepticus.
The Fintepla label has a boxed warning stating that the drug is associated with valvular heart disease (VHD) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Due to these risks, patients must undergo echocardiography before treatment, every 6 months during treatment, and once 3 to 6 months after treatment is stopped.
If signs of VHD, PAH, or other cardiac abnormalities are present, clinicians should weigh the benefits and risks of continuing treatment with Fintepla, the FDA said.
Fintepla is available only through a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program, which requires physicians who prescribe the drug and pharmacies that dispense it to be certified in the Fintepla REMS and that patients be enrolled in the program.
As part of the REMS requirements, prescribers and patients must adhere to the required cardiac monitoring to receive the drug.
Fintepla will be available to certified prescribers in the United States in July. Zogenix is launching Zogenix Central, a comprehensive support service that will provide ongoing product assistance to patients, caregivers, and their medical teams. Further information is available online.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
First reported U.S. case of COVID-19 linked to Guillain-Barré syndrome
further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.
Physicians in China reported the first case of COVID-19 that initially presented as acute GBS. The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.
Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.
The first U.S. case is described in the June issue of the Journal of Clinical Neuromuscular Disease.
Like cases from China and Italy, the U.S. patient’s symptoms of GBS reportedly occurred within days of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. “This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted.
The 54-year-old man was transferred to Allegheny General Hospital after developing ascending limb weakness and numbness that followed symptoms of a respiratory infection. Two weeks earlier, he initially developed rhinorrhea, odynophagia, fevers, chills, and night sweats. The man reported that his wife had tested positive for COVID-19 and that his symptoms started soon after her illness. The man also tested positive for COVID-19.
His deficits were characterized by quadriparesis and areflexia, burning dysesthesias, mild ophthalmoparesis, and dysautonomia. He did not have the loss of smell and taste documented in other COVID-19 patients. He briefly required mechanical ventilation and was successfully weaned after receiving a course of intravenous immunoglobulin.
Compared with other cases reported in the literature, the unique clinical features in the U.S. case are urinary retention secondary to dysautonomia and ocular symptoms of diplopia. These highlight the variability in the clinical presentation of GBS associated with COVID-19, the researchers noted.
They added that, with the Pittsburgh patient, electrophysiological findings were typical of demyelinating polyneuropathy seen in patients with GBS. The case series from Italy suggests that axonal variants could be as common in COVID-19–associated GBS.
“Although the number of documented cases internationally is notably small to date, it’s not completely surprising that a COVID-19 diagnosis may lead to a patient developing GBS. The increase of inflammation and inflammatory cells caused by the infection may trigger an irregular immune response that leads to the hallmark symptoms of this neurological disorder,” Dr. Rana said in a news release.
“Since GBS can significantly affect the respiratory system and other vital organs being pushed into overdrive during a COVID-19 immune response, it will be critically important to further investigate and understand this potential connection,” he added.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.
Physicians in China reported the first case of COVID-19 that initially presented as acute GBS. The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.
Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.
The first U.S. case is described in the June issue of the Journal of Clinical Neuromuscular Disease.
Like cases from China and Italy, the U.S. patient’s symptoms of GBS reportedly occurred within days of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. “This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted.
The 54-year-old man was transferred to Allegheny General Hospital after developing ascending limb weakness and numbness that followed symptoms of a respiratory infection. Two weeks earlier, he initially developed rhinorrhea, odynophagia, fevers, chills, and night sweats. The man reported that his wife had tested positive for COVID-19 and that his symptoms started soon after her illness. The man also tested positive for COVID-19.
His deficits were characterized by quadriparesis and areflexia, burning dysesthesias, mild ophthalmoparesis, and dysautonomia. He did not have the loss of smell and taste documented in other COVID-19 patients. He briefly required mechanical ventilation and was successfully weaned after receiving a course of intravenous immunoglobulin.
Compared with other cases reported in the literature, the unique clinical features in the U.S. case are urinary retention secondary to dysautonomia and ocular symptoms of diplopia. These highlight the variability in the clinical presentation of GBS associated with COVID-19, the researchers noted.
They added that, with the Pittsburgh patient, electrophysiological findings were typical of demyelinating polyneuropathy seen in patients with GBS. The case series from Italy suggests that axonal variants could be as common in COVID-19–associated GBS.
“Although the number of documented cases internationally is notably small to date, it’s not completely surprising that a COVID-19 diagnosis may lead to a patient developing GBS. The increase of inflammation and inflammatory cells caused by the infection may trigger an irregular immune response that leads to the hallmark symptoms of this neurological disorder,” Dr. Rana said in a news release.
“Since GBS can significantly affect the respiratory system and other vital organs being pushed into overdrive during a COVID-19 immune response, it will be critically important to further investigate and understand this potential connection,” he added.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.
Physicians in China reported the first case of COVID-19 that initially presented as acute GBS. The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.
Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.
The first U.S. case is described in the June issue of the Journal of Clinical Neuromuscular Disease.
Like cases from China and Italy, the U.S. patient’s symptoms of GBS reportedly occurred within days of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. “This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted.
The 54-year-old man was transferred to Allegheny General Hospital after developing ascending limb weakness and numbness that followed symptoms of a respiratory infection. Two weeks earlier, he initially developed rhinorrhea, odynophagia, fevers, chills, and night sweats. The man reported that his wife had tested positive for COVID-19 and that his symptoms started soon after her illness. The man also tested positive for COVID-19.
His deficits were characterized by quadriparesis and areflexia, burning dysesthesias, mild ophthalmoparesis, and dysautonomia. He did not have the loss of smell and taste documented in other COVID-19 patients. He briefly required mechanical ventilation and was successfully weaned after receiving a course of intravenous immunoglobulin.
Compared with other cases reported in the literature, the unique clinical features in the U.S. case are urinary retention secondary to dysautonomia and ocular symptoms of diplopia. These highlight the variability in the clinical presentation of GBS associated with COVID-19, the researchers noted.
They added that, with the Pittsburgh patient, electrophysiological findings were typical of demyelinating polyneuropathy seen in patients with GBS. The case series from Italy suggests that axonal variants could be as common in COVID-19–associated GBS.
“Although the number of documented cases internationally is notably small to date, it’s not completely surprising that a COVID-19 diagnosis may lead to a patient developing GBS. The increase of inflammation and inflammatory cells caused by the infection may trigger an irregular immune response that leads to the hallmark symptoms of this neurological disorder,” Dr. Rana said in a news release.
“Since GBS can significantly affect the respiratory system and other vital organs being pushed into overdrive during a COVID-19 immune response, it will be critically important to further investigate and understand this potential connection,” he added.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Five healthy lifestyle choices tied to dramatic cut in dementia risk
“I hope this study will motivate people to engage in a healthy lifestyle by not smoking, being physically and cognitively active, and having a high-quality diet,” lead investigator Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, department of internal medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.
The study was published online June 17 in Neurology.
Risk-modifying behaviors
To help quantify the impact of a healthy life on risk for Alzheimer’s dementia, Dr. Dhana and colleagues reviewed data from two longitudinal study populations: the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP), with 1,845 participants, and the Memory and Aging Project (MAP), with 920 participants.
They defined a healthy lifestyle score on the basis of the following factors: not smoking; engaging in 150 min/wk or more of physical exercise of moderate to vigorous intensity; light to moderate alcohol consumption (between 1 and less than 15 g/day for women and between 1 and less than 30 g/day for men); consuming a high-quality Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet (upper 40%); and engaging in late-life cognitive activities (upper 40%). The overall score ranged from 0 to 5.
At baseline, the mean age of participants was 73.2 years in the CHAP study and 81.1 years in the MAP study; 62.4% of the CHAP participants and 75.2% of the MAP participants were women.
During a median follow-up of 5.8 years in CHAP and 6.0 years in MAP, a total of 379 and 229 participants, respectively, developed Alzheimer’s dementia. Rates of dementia decreased with an increasing number of healthy lifestyle behaviors.
In multivariable-adjusted models across the two cohorts, the risk for Alzheimer’s dementia was 27% lower with each additional healthy lifestyle factor (pooled hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.80).
Compared with individuals with a healthy lifestyle score of 0-1, the risk was 37% lower (pooled HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.84) for those with two or three healthy lifestyle factors and 60% lower (pooled HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.56) for those with four or five healthy lifestyle factors.
“From these findings and the fact that the lifestyle factors we studied are modifiable and in direct control of the individual, it is imperative to promote them concurrently among older adults as a strategy to delay or prevent Alzheimer’s dementia,” Dr. Dhana and colleagues concluded.
In a statement, Dallas Anderson, PhD, program director, division of neuroscience, National Institute on Aging, said the findings help “paint the picture of how multiple factors are likely playing parts in Alzheimer’s disease risk.”
“It’s not a clear cause-and-effect result, but a strong finding because of the dual data sets and combination of modifiable lifestyle factors that appear to lead to risk reduction,” Dr. Anderson added.
Essential questions remain
Commenting on the new study, Luca Giliberto, MD, PhD, neurologist with the Litwin-Zucker Research Center for Alzheimer’s Disease and Memory Disorders at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., said this analysis is “further demonstration that a healthy lifestyle is essential to overcome or curb” the risk for Alzheimer’s disease.
“What needs to be determined is how early should we start ‘behaving.’ We should all aim to score four to five factors across our entire lifespan, but this is not always feasible. So, when is the time to behave? Also, what is the relative weight of each of these factors?” said Dr. Giliberto.
Of note, he added, although addressing vascular risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes “may require an extensive mindful and logistic effort, a healthy diet is effortlessly achieved in some countries, where both the DASH and MIND diets do not need to be ‘prescribed’ but are rather culturally engraved in the population.
“This is, in part, related to the wide availability of high-quality food in these countries, which is not the same in the U.S. This work is one more demonstration of the need to revisit our take on quality of food in the U.S.,” said Dr. Giliberto.
Numerous clinical trials testing lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention are currently underway. The MIND Diet Intervention to Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease, for example, is an interventional clinical trial comparing parallel groups with two different diets. MIND has enrolled more than 600 participants and is ongoing. The anticipated completion date is 2021. Another is the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER), a multisite randomized clinical trial evaluating whether lifestyle interventions – including exercise, cognitively stimulating activities, and the MIND diet – may protect cognitive function in older adults who are at increased risk for cognitive decline.
Funding for the current study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Giliberto have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“I hope this study will motivate people to engage in a healthy lifestyle by not smoking, being physically and cognitively active, and having a high-quality diet,” lead investigator Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, department of internal medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.
The study was published online June 17 in Neurology.
Risk-modifying behaviors
To help quantify the impact of a healthy life on risk for Alzheimer’s dementia, Dr. Dhana and colleagues reviewed data from two longitudinal study populations: the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP), with 1,845 participants, and the Memory and Aging Project (MAP), with 920 participants.
They defined a healthy lifestyle score on the basis of the following factors: not smoking; engaging in 150 min/wk or more of physical exercise of moderate to vigorous intensity; light to moderate alcohol consumption (between 1 and less than 15 g/day for women and between 1 and less than 30 g/day for men); consuming a high-quality Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet (upper 40%); and engaging in late-life cognitive activities (upper 40%). The overall score ranged from 0 to 5.
At baseline, the mean age of participants was 73.2 years in the CHAP study and 81.1 years in the MAP study; 62.4% of the CHAP participants and 75.2% of the MAP participants were women.
During a median follow-up of 5.8 years in CHAP and 6.0 years in MAP, a total of 379 and 229 participants, respectively, developed Alzheimer’s dementia. Rates of dementia decreased with an increasing number of healthy lifestyle behaviors.
In multivariable-adjusted models across the two cohorts, the risk for Alzheimer’s dementia was 27% lower with each additional healthy lifestyle factor (pooled hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.80).
Compared with individuals with a healthy lifestyle score of 0-1, the risk was 37% lower (pooled HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.84) for those with two or three healthy lifestyle factors and 60% lower (pooled HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.56) for those with four or five healthy lifestyle factors.
“From these findings and the fact that the lifestyle factors we studied are modifiable and in direct control of the individual, it is imperative to promote them concurrently among older adults as a strategy to delay or prevent Alzheimer’s dementia,” Dr. Dhana and colleagues concluded.
In a statement, Dallas Anderson, PhD, program director, division of neuroscience, National Institute on Aging, said the findings help “paint the picture of how multiple factors are likely playing parts in Alzheimer’s disease risk.”
“It’s not a clear cause-and-effect result, but a strong finding because of the dual data sets and combination of modifiable lifestyle factors that appear to lead to risk reduction,” Dr. Anderson added.
Essential questions remain
Commenting on the new study, Luca Giliberto, MD, PhD, neurologist with the Litwin-Zucker Research Center for Alzheimer’s Disease and Memory Disorders at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., said this analysis is “further demonstration that a healthy lifestyle is essential to overcome or curb” the risk for Alzheimer’s disease.
“What needs to be determined is how early should we start ‘behaving.’ We should all aim to score four to five factors across our entire lifespan, but this is not always feasible. So, when is the time to behave? Also, what is the relative weight of each of these factors?” said Dr. Giliberto.
Of note, he added, although addressing vascular risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes “may require an extensive mindful and logistic effort, a healthy diet is effortlessly achieved in some countries, where both the DASH and MIND diets do not need to be ‘prescribed’ but are rather culturally engraved in the population.
“This is, in part, related to the wide availability of high-quality food in these countries, which is not the same in the U.S. This work is one more demonstration of the need to revisit our take on quality of food in the U.S.,” said Dr. Giliberto.
Numerous clinical trials testing lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention are currently underway. The MIND Diet Intervention to Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease, for example, is an interventional clinical trial comparing parallel groups with two different diets. MIND has enrolled more than 600 participants and is ongoing. The anticipated completion date is 2021. Another is the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER), a multisite randomized clinical trial evaluating whether lifestyle interventions – including exercise, cognitively stimulating activities, and the MIND diet – may protect cognitive function in older adults who are at increased risk for cognitive decline.
Funding for the current study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Giliberto have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“I hope this study will motivate people to engage in a healthy lifestyle by not smoking, being physically and cognitively active, and having a high-quality diet,” lead investigator Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, department of internal medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.
The study was published online June 17 in Neurology.
Risk-modifying behaviors
To help quantify the impact of a healthy life on risk for Alzheimer’s dementia, Dr. Dhana and colleagues reviewed data from two longitudinal study populations: the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP), with 1,845 participants, and the Memory and Aging Project (MAP), with 920 participants.
They defined a healthy lifestyle score on the basis of the following factors: not smoking; engaging in 150 min/wk or more of physical exercise of moderate to vigorous intensity; light to moderate alcohol consumption (between 1 and less than 15 g/day for women and between 1 and less than 30 g/day for men); consuming a high-quality Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet (upper 40%); and engaging in late-life cognitive activities (upper 40%). The overall score ranged from 0 to 5.
At baseline, the mean age of participants was 73.2 years in the CHAP study and 81.1 years in the MAP study; 62.4% of the CHAP participants and 75.2% of the MAP participants were women.
During a median follow-up of 5.8 years in CHAP and 6.0 years in MAP, a total of 379 and 229 participants, respectively, developed Alzheimer’s dementia. Rates of dementia decreased with an increasing number of healthy lifestyle behaviors.
In multivariable-adjusted models across the two cohorts, the risk for Alzheimer’s dementia was 27% lower with each additional healthy lifestyle factor (pooled hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.80).
Compared with individuals with a healthy lifestyle score of 0-1, the risk was 37% lower (pooled HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.84) for those with two or three healthy lifestyle factors and 60% lower (pooled HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.56) for those with four or five healthy lifestyle factors.
“From these findings and the fact that the lifestyle factors we studied are modifiable and in direct control of the individual, it is imperative to promote them concurrently among older adults as a strategy to delay or prevent Alzheimer’s dementia,” Dr. Dhana and colleagues concluded.
In a statement, Dallas Anderson, PhD, program director, division of neuroscience, National Institute on Aging, said the findings help “paint the picture of how multiple factors are likely playing parts in Alzheimer’s disease risk.”
“It’s not a clear cause-and-effect result, but a strong finding because of the dual data sets and combination of modifiable lifestyle factors that appear to lead to risk reduction,” Dr. Anderson added.
Essential questions remain
Commenting on the new study, Luca Giliberto, MD, PhD, neurologist with the Litwin-Zucker Research Center for Alzheimer’s Disease and Memory Disorders at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., said this analysis is “further demonstration that a healthy lifestyle is essential to overcome or curb” the risk for Alzheimer’s disease.
“What needs to be determined is how early should we start ‘behaving.’ We should all aim to score four to five factors across our entire lifespan, but this is not always feasible. So, when is the time to behave? Also, what is the relative weight of each of these factors?” said Dr. Giliberto.
Of note, he added, although addressing vascular risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes “may require an extensive mindful and logistic effort, a healthy diet is effortlessly achieved in some countries, where both the DASH and MIND diets do not need to be ‘prescribed’ but are rather culturally engraved in the population.
“This is, in part, related to the wide availability of high-quality food in these countries, which is not the same in the U.S. This work is one more demonstration of the need to revisit our take on quality of food in the U.S.,” said Dr. Giliberto.
Numerous clinical trials testing lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention are currently underway. The MIND Diet Intervention to Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease, for example, is an interventional clinical trial comparing parallel groups with two different diets. MIND has enrolled more than 600 participants and is ongoing. The anticipated completion date is 2021. Another is the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER), a multisite randomized clinical trial evaluating whether lifestyle interventions – including exercise, cognitively stimulating activities, and the MIND diet – may protect cognitive function in older adults who are at increased risk for cognitive decline.
Funding for the current study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Giliberto have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
FDA approves selinexor for relapsed/refractory DLBCL
The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval of selinexor, a nuclear transport inhibitor, for the treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
Selinexor (marketed as XPOVIO by Karyopharm Therapeutics) is intended for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, according to the FDA’s announcement.
The FDA granted selinexor accelerated approval for this indication based on the response rate seen in the SADAL trial. Continued approval for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.
The SADAL trial (NCT02227251) was a phase 2, single-arm, open-label study of patients with DLBCL who had previously received two to five systemic regimens. The patients received selinexor at 60 mg orally on days 1 and 3 of each week.
Results in 134 patients showed an overall response rate of 29% (95% confidence interval: 22-38), with complete responses in 13% of patients. Of 39 patients who achieved a partial or complete response, 38% had a response duration of at least 6 months, and 15% had a response duration of at least 12 months, according to the FDA announcement.
The most common adverse reactions in this trial were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, appetite decrease, weight decrease, constipation, vomiting, and pyrexia. Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities occurred in 15% or more of the patients, and comprised thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, neutropenia, anemia, and hyponatremia.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 46% of patients, most often from infection. Gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 80% of patients, and any-grade hyponatremia occurred in 61%. Central neurological adverse reactions occurred in 25% of patients, including dizziness and mental status changes, according to the announcement.
Warnings and precautions for adverse events – including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, gastrointestinal toxicity, hyponatremia, serious infection, neurological toxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity – are provided in the prescribing information.
Selinexor acts through the inhibition of exportin-1 and leads to an accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins, a reduction in oncoproteins, and apoptosis of cancer cells. The drug was previously approved in 2019 for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.
The SADAL trial was sponsored by Karyopharm Therapeutics.
SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2020. Approval announcement.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval of selinexor, a nuclear transport inhibitor, for the treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
Selinexor (marketed as XPOVIO by Karyopharm Therapeutics) is intended for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, according to the FDA’s announcement.
The FDA granted selinexor accelerated approval for this indication based on the response rate seen in the SADAL trial. Continued approval for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.
The SADAL trial (NCT02227251) was a phase 2, single-arm, open-label study of patients with DLBCL who had previously received two to five systemic regimens. The patients received selinexor at 60 mg orally on days 1 and 3 of each week.
Results in 134 patients showed an overall response rate of 29% (95% confidence interval: 22-38), with complete responses in 13% of patients. Of 39 patients who achieved a partial or complete response, 38% had a response duration of at least 6 months, and 15% had a response duration of at least 12 months, according to the FDA announcement.
The most common adverse reactions in this trial were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, appetite decrease, weight decrease, constipation, vomiting, and pyrexia. Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities occurred in 15% or more of the patients, and comprised thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, neutropenia, anemia, and hyponatremia.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 46% of patients, most often from infection. Gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 80% of patients, and any-grade hyponatremia occurred in 61%. Central neurological adverse reactions occurred in 25% of patients, including dizziness and mental status changes, according to the announcement.
Warnings and precautions for adverse events – including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, gastrointestinal toxicity, hyponatremia, serious infection, neurological toxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity – are provided in the prescribing information.
Selinexor acts through the inhibition of exportin-1 and leads to an accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins, a reduction in oncoproteins, and apoptosis of cancer cells. The drug was previously approved in 2019 for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.
The SADAL trial was sponsored by Karyopharm Therapeutics.
SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2020. Approval announcement.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval of selinexor, a nuclear transport inhibitor, for the treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
Selinexor (marketed as XPOVIO by Karyopharm Therapeutics) is intended for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, according to the FDA’s announcement.
The FDA granted selinexor accelerated approval for this indication based on the response rate seen in the SADAL trial. Continued approval for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.
The SADAL trial (NCT02227251) was a phase 2, single-arm, open-label study of patients with DLBCL who had previously received two to five systemic regimens. The patients received selinexor at 60 mg orally on days 1 and 3 of each week.
Results in 134 patients showed an overall response rate of 29% (95% confidence interval: 22-38), with complete responses in 13% of patients. Of 39 patients who achieved a partial or complete response, 38% had a response duration of at least 6 months, and 15% had a response duration of at least 12 months, according to the FDA announcement.
The most common adverse reactions in this trial were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, appetite decrease, weight decrease, constipation, vomiting, and pyrexia. Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities occurred in 15% or more of the patients, and comprised thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, neutropenia, anemia, and hyponatremia.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 46% of patients, most often from infection. Gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 80% of patients, and any-grade hyponatremia occurred in 61%. Central neurological adverse reactions occurred in 25% of patients, including dizziness and mental status changes, according to the announcement.
Warnings and precautions for adverse events – including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, gastrointestinal toxicity, hyponatremia, serious infection, neurological toxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity – are provided in the prescribing information.
Selinexor acts through the inhibition of exportin-1 and leads to an accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins, a reduction in oncoproteins, and apoptosis of cancer cells. The drug was previously approved in 2019 for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.
The SADAL trial was sponsored by Karyopharm Therapeutics.
SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2020. Approval announcement.
FROM THE FDA
Ibrutinib-venetoclax produces high MRD-negative rates in CLL/SLL
In patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a once-daily oral regimen of ibrutinib and venetoclax was associated with deep molecular remissions in both bone marrow and peripheral blood, including in patients with high-risk disease, according to investigators in the phase 2 CAPTIVATE MRD trial.
An intention-to-treat analysis of 164 patients with CLL/SLL treated with the combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) showed a 75% rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in peripheral blood, and a 68% rate of MRD negativity in bone marrow among patients who received up to 12 cycles of the combination, reported Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues.
“This phase 2 study supports synergistic antitumor activity of the combination with notable deep responses across multiple compartments,” she said in an oral presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
Not ready to change practice
A hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study said that the data from CAPTIVATE MRD look good, but it’s still not known whether concurrent or sequential administration of the agents is optimal, and whether other regimens may be more effective in the first line.
“I think this is promising, but the informative and practice-changing study would be to compare this combination to ibrutinib monotherapy or to venetoclax and obinutuzumab, and that’s actually the subject of the next large German cooperative group study, CLL17,” said Catherine C. Coombs, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, and the UNC Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.
She noted that the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Gazyva) is also associated with high rates of MRD negativity in the first-line setting, and that use of this regimen allows clinicians to reserve ibrutinib or acalabrutinib (Calquence) for patients in the relapsed setting.
Prerandomization results
Dr. Siddiqi presented prerandomization results from the MRD cohort of the CAPTIVATE trial (NCT02910583), which is evaluating the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax for depth of MRD response. Following 12 cycles of the combinations, patients in this cohort are then randomized based on confirmed MRD status, with patients who are MRD negative randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib or placebo, and patients with residual disease (MRD positive) randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib alone or with venetoclax.
A total of 164 patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL and active disease requiring treatment who were under age 70 and had good performance status were enrolled. Following an ibrutinib lead-in period with the drug given at 420 mg once daily for three cycles of 28 days, the patients were continued on ibrutinib, and were started on venetoclax with a ramp up to 400 mg once daily, for 12 additional cycles.
As planned, patients were assessed after 15 cycles for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk assessment, MRD, and hematologic, clinical, imaging, and bone marrow exams for response.
The median patient age was 58, with poor-risk features such as deletion 17p seen in 16%, complex karyotype in 19%, and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) in 59%.
A total of 152 patients (90%) completed all 12 cycles of the combined agents, with a median treatment duration of 14.7 months on ibrutinib and 12 months on venetoclax. Eight patients had adverse events leading to discontinuation, but there were no treatment-related deaths.
A majority of patients had reductions in lymph node burden after the three-cycle ibrutinib lead in. TLS risk also decreased during the lead-in period, with 90% of patients who had a high baseline TLS risk shifting to medium or low-risk categories, and no patients moved into the high-risk category.
“Hospitalization because of this was no longer required in 66% of at-risk patients after three cycles of ibrutinib lead in, and 82% of patients initiated venetoclax ramp up without the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
The best response of undetectable MRD was seen in peripheral blood of 75% of 163 evaluable patients, and in bone marrow of 72% of 155 patients. As noted before, the respective rates of MRD negativity in the intention-to-treat population were 75% and 68%. The proportion of patients with undetectable MRD in peripheral blood increased over time, from 57% after six cycles of the combination, she said.
The overall response rate was 97%, including 51% complete responses (CR) or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi), and 46% partial (PR) or nodular PR (nPR). Among patients with CR/CRi, 85% had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and 80% were MRD negative in bone marrow. In patients with PR/nPR, the respective rates were 69% and 59%. The high rates of undetectable MRD were seen irrespective of baseline disease characteristics, including bulky disease, cytogenetic risk category, del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and complex karyotype.
The most common adverse events with the combination were grade 1 or 2 diarrhea, arthralgia, fatigue, headache, and nausea. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 17% of patients, and grade 4 neutropenia was seen in 16%. Grade 3 febrile neutropenia and laboratory confirmed TLS occurred in 2 patients each (1%), and there were no grade 4 instances of either adverse event.
Postrandomization follow-up and analyses are currently being conducted, and results will be reported at a future meeting, real or virtual. An analysis of data on a separate cohort of 159 patients treated with the ibrutinib-venetoclax combination for a fixed duration is currently ongoing.
Dr. Siddiqi disclosed research funding and speakers bureau activity for Pharmacyclics, which sponsored the study, and others, as well as consulting/advising for several companies. Dr. Coombs disclosed consulting for AbbVie.
SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. EHA25. Abstract S158.
In patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a once-daily oral regimen of ibrutinib and venetoclax was associated with deep molecular remissions in both bone marrow and peripheral blood, including in patients with high-risk disease, according to investigators in the phase 2 CAPTIVATE MRD trial.
An intention-to-treat analysis of 164 patients with CLL/SLL treated with the combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) showed a 75% rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in peripheral blood, and a 68% rate of MRD negativity in bone marrow among patients who received up to 12 cycles of the combination, reported Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues.
“This phase 2 study supports synergistic antitumor activity of the combination with notable deep responses across multiple compartments,” she said in an oral presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
Not ready to change practice
A hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study said that the data from CAPTIVATE MRD look good, but it’s still not known whether concurrent or sequential administration of the agents is optimal, and whether other regimens may be more effective in the first line.
“I think this is promising, but the informative and practice-changing study would be to compare this combination to ibrutinib monotherapy or to venetoclax and obinutuzumab, and that’s actually the subject of the next large German cooperative group study, CLL17,” said Catherine C. Coombs, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, and the UNC Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.
She noted that the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Gazyva) is also associated with high rates of MRD negativity in the first-line setting, and that use of this regimen allows clinicians to reserve ibrutinib or acalabrutinib (Calquence) for patients in the relapsed setting.
Prerandomization results
Dr. Siddiqi presented prerandomization results from the MRD cohort of the CAPTIVATE trial (NCT02910583), which is evaluating the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax for depth of MRD response. Following 12 cycles of the combinations, patients in this cohort are then randomized based on confirmed MRD status, with patients who are MRD negative randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib or placebo, and patients with residual disease (MRD positive) randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib alone or with venetoclax.
A total of 164 patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL and active disease requiring treatment who were under age 70 and had good performance status were enrolled. Following an ibrutinib lead-in period with the drug given at 420 mg once daily for three cycles of 28 days, the patients were continued on ibrutinib, and were started on venetoclax with a ramp up to 400 mg once daily, for 12 additional cycles.
As planned, patients were assessed after 15 cycles for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk assessment, MRD, and hematologic, clinical, imaging, and bone marrow exams for response.
The median patient age was 58, with poor-risk features such as deletion 17p seen in 16%, complex karyotype in 19%, and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) in 59%.
A total of 152 patients (90%) completed all 12 cycles of the combined agents, with a median treatment duration of 14.7 months on ibrutinib and 12 months on venetoclax. Eight patients had adverse events leading to discontinuation, but there were no treatment-related deaths.
A majority of patients had reductions in lymph node burden after the three-cycle ibrutinib lead in. TLS risk also decreased during the lead-in period, with 90% of patients who had a high baseline TLS risk shifting to medium or low-risk categories, and no patients moved into the high-risk category.
“Hospitalization because of this was no longer required in 66% of at-risk patients after three cycles of ibrutinib lead in, and 82% of patients initiated venetoclax ramp up without the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
The best response of undetectable MRD was seen in peripheral blood of 75% of 163 evaluable patients, and in bone marrow of 72% of 155 patients. As noted before, the respective rates of MRD negativity in the intention-to-treat population were 75% and 68%. The proportion of patients with undetectable MRD in peripheral blood increased over time, from 57% after six cycles of the combination, she said.
The overall response rate was 97%, including 51% complete responses (CR) or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi), and 46% partial (PR) or nodular PR (nPR). Among patients with CR/CRi, 85% had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and 80% were MRD negative in bone marrow. In patients with PR/nPR, the respective rates were 69% and 59%. The high rates of undetectable MRD were seen irrespective of baseline disease characteristics, including bulky disease, cytogenetic risk category, del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and complex karyotype.
The most common adverse events with the combination were grade 1 or 2 diarrhea, arthralgia, fatigue, headache, and nausea. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 17% of patients, and grade 4 neutropenia was seen in 16%. Grade 3 febrile neutropenia and laboratory confirmed TLS occurred in 2 patients each (1%), and there were no grade 4 instances of either adverse event.
Postrandomization follow-up and analyses are currently being conducted, and results will be reported at a future meeting, real or virtual. An analysis of data on a separate cohort of 159 patients treated with the ibrutinib-venetoclax combination for a fixed duration is currently ongoing.
Dr. Siddiqi disclosed research funding and speakers bureau activity for Pharmacyclics, which sponsored the study, and others, as well as consulting/advising for several companies. Dr. Coombs disclosed consulting for AbbVie.
SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. EHA25. Abstract S158.
In patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a once-daily oral regimen of ibrutinib and venetoclax was associated with deep molecular remissions in both bone marrow and peripheral blood, including in patients with high-risk disease, according to investigators in the phase 2 CAPTIVATE MRD trial.
An intention-to-treat analysis of 164 patients with CLL/SLL treated with the combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) showed a 75% rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in peripheral blood, and a 68% rate of MRD negativity in bone marrow among patients who received up to 12 cycles of the combination, reported Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues.
“This phase 2 study supports synergistic antitumor activity of the combination with notable deep responses across multiple compartments,” she said in an oral presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
Not ready to change practice
A hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study said that the data from CAPTIVATE MRD look good, but it’s still not known whether concurrent or sequential administration of the agents is optimal, and whether other regimens may be more effective in the first line.
“I think this is promising, but the informative and practice-changing study would be to compare this combination to ibrutinib monotherapy or to venetoclax and obinutuzumab, and that’s actually the subject of the next large German cooperative group study, CLL17,” said Catherine C. Coombs, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, and the UNC Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.
She noted that the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Gazyva) is also associated with high rates of MRD negativity in the first-line setting, and that use of this regimen allows clinicians to reserve ibrutinib or acalabrutinib (Calquence) for patients in the relapsed setting.
Prerandomization results
Dr. Siddiqi presented prerandomization results from the MRD cohort of the CAPTIVATE trial (NCT02910583), which is evaluating the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax for depth of MRD response. Following 12 cycles of the combinations, patients in this cohort are then randomized based on confirmed MRD status, with patients who are MRD negative randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib or placebo, and patients with residual disease (MRD positive) randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib alone or with venetoclax.
A total of 164 patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL and active disease requiring treatment who were under age 70 and had good performance status were enrolled. Following an ibrutinib lead-in period with the drug given at 420 mg once daily for three cycles of 28 days, the patients were continued on ibrutinib, and were started on venetoclax with a ramp up to 400 mg once daily, for 12 additional cycles.
As planned, patients were assessed after 15 cycles for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk assessment, MRD, and hematologic, clinical, imaging, and bone marrow exams for response.
The median patient age was 58, with poor-risk features such as deletion 17p seen in 16%, complex karyotype in 19%, and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) in 59%.
A total of 152 patients (90%) completed all 12 cycles of the combined agents, with a median treatment duration of 14.7 months on ibrutinib and 12 months on venetoclax. Eight patients had adverse events leading to discontinuation, but there were no treatment-related deaths.
A majority of patients had reductions in lymph node burden after the three-cycle ibrutinib lead in. TLS risk also decreased during the lead-in period, with 90% of patients who had a high baseline TLS risk shifting to medium or low-risk categories, and no patients moved into the high-risk category.
“Hospitalization because of this was no longer required in 66% of at-risk patients after three cycles of ibrutinib lead in, and 82% of patients initiated venetoclax ramp up without the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
The best response of undetectable MRD was seen in peripheral blood of 75% of 163 evaluable patients, and in bone marrow of 72% of 155 patients. As noted before, the respective rates of MRD negativity in the intention-to-treat population were 75% and 68%. The proportion of patients with undetectable MRD in peripheral blood increased over time, from 57% after six cycles of the combination, she said.
The overall response rate was 97%, including 51% complete responses (CR) or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi), and 46% partial (PR) or nodular PR (nPR). Among patients with CR/CRi, 85% had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and 80% were MRD negative in bone marrow. In patients with PR/nPR, the respective rates were 69% and 59%. The high rates of undetectable MRD were seen irrespective of baseline disease characteristics, including bulky disease, cytogenetic risk category, del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and complex karyotype.
The most common adverse events with the combination were grade 1 or 2 diarrhea, arthralgia, fatigue, headache, and nausea. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 17% of patients, and grade 4 neutropenia was seen in 16%. Grade 3 febrile neutropenia and laboratory confirmed TLS occurred in 2 patients each (1%), and there were no grade 4 instances of either adverse event.
Postrandomization follow-up and analyses are currently being conducted, and results will be reported at a future meeting, real or virtual. An analysis of data on a separate cohort of 159 patients treated with the ibrutinib-venetoclax combination for a fixed duration is currently ongoing.
Dr. Siddiqi disclosed research funding and speakers bureau activity for Pharmacyclics, which sponsored the study, and others, as well as consulting/advising for several companies. Dr. Coombs disclosed consulting for AbbVie.
SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. EHA25. Abstract S158.
FROM EHA 2020