User login
Promising topline phase 2 results for novel oral Alzheimer’s drug
Topline results provide “clinical evidence of a modification of multiple AD pathologies associated with amyloid plaque burden,” said John Didsbury, PhD, chief executive officer of T3D Therapeutics Inc., the company developing the drug.
While the primary cognitive endpoints were not met in the overall study population, the data suggest that a “high plasma pTau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio, a marker of AD pathology, likely defines an AD population responsive to T3D-959 therapy,” Dr. Didsbury said.
He said it’s important to note that no PET imaging (amyloid/tau) or biomarkers were used as entry criteria and, in hindsight, some participants likely did not have AD, which likely played a role in the negative primary outcome.
The findings from the PIONEER study were presented at the annual Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
‘Surprised and shocked’
The PPAR family of proteins helps regulate blood sugar and triglyceride levels. The rationale for evaluating PPAR agonists in AD is based on the hypothesis that sporadic AD is fundamentally an age-related metabolic disease.
T3D-959 is the first PPAR delta-activating compound to be developed for the treatment of AD. Uniquely, this drug also activates PPAR gamma, which may provide potential additive or synergistic effects in regulating dysfunctional brain glucose energy and lipid metabolism in AD.
The PIONEER tested three doses of T3D-959 (15 mg, 30 mg, and 45 mg) vs. placebo in 250 adults with mild to moderate AD (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 14-26, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)-Global 0.5-2.0, and Sum of Boxes [CDR-SB] ≥ 3.0). T3D-959 or placebo was taken once daily for 24 weeks.
In the overall population, the primary endpoints – Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) – were not met.
“Plain and simple, when we saw this data, we were surprised and shocked,” said Dr. Didsbury, and wondered, “How can placebo be doing so well on a 6-month AD trial?”
“We suspect the presence of non-AD subjects in the trial based on the lower-than-typical number of ApoE4 positive subjects, increased cognitive performance and learning effects observed, and only 45% of trial subjects having a low pTau-217 ratio, a biomarker indicating that they would have no AD pathology plasma,” he explained.
Plasma baseline pTau-217 ratio correlates with AD risk and severity and is a marker of AD pathology; in the subgroup with high pTau-217 ratio, the ADAS-Cog11 endpoint was met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group vs. the placebo group (–0.74 vs. 1.27; P = .112), “consistent with clinical benefit,” Dr. Didsbury noted.
The secondary endpoint of change in plasma amyloid-beta (Ab)42/40 ratio was also met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group – increasing at week 24 with T3D-959 vs. decreasing with placebo (P = .0206), with even greater improvement in the high pTau-217 ratio group. In this group, improvement of Ab42/40 ratio was nearly twofold greater than the overall group.
T3D-959 had a similar magnitude of effect on Ab42/40 as lecanemab (Leqembi) at 6 months, the researchers point out in their late-breaking abstract.
Biomarkers of all three AD diagnostic criteria (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) were improved, as well as markers of inflammation, insulin resistance, and dysfunctional lipid metabolism – results that demonstrate “peripheral targeted engagement,” Dr. Didsbury said.
“Along with the strong safety profile of T3D-959, the evidence supports a larger study evaluating T3D-959 30 mg/day in patients with mild to moderate AD and a baseline plasma p-Tau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio of ≥ 0.015,” the researchers conclude in their abstract.
Lessons learned
Commenting on the research for this article, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “the idea behind this treatment is that impaired glucose metabolism in the brain leads to toxic misfolded proteins, including amyloid and tau in people with Alzheimer’s disease.”
“The treatment focuses on improving regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism in the brain. This is one of more than 140 approaches that are being tested today to target the biological drivers and contributors to Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Because biomarkers were not used to enroll participants, “there was a high population of people in the trial who did not have Alzheimer’s. This very likely contributed to the negative result,” she noted.
However, the results also suggest that those taking the drug who had a high pTau217 ratio – and are likely to have brain amyloid plaques – had less cognitive decline, she noted.
Lessons learned from this negative trial include “the proper dose to balance efficacy and safety, and how to screen participants for their next study,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Didsbury and Dr. Edelmayer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Topline results provide “clinical evidence of a modification of multiple AD pathologies associated with amyloid plaque burden,” said John Didsbury, PhD, chief executive officer of T3D Therapeutics Inc., the company developing the drug.
While the primary cognitive endpoints were not met in the overall study population, the data suggest that a “high plasma pTau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio, a marker of AD pathology, likely defines an AD population responsive to T3D-959 therapy,” Dr. Didsbury said.
He said it’s important to note that no PET imaging (amyloid/tau) or biomarkers were used as entry criteria and, in hindsight, some participants likely did not have AD, which likely played a role in the negative primary outcome.
The findings from the PIONEER study were presented at the annual Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
‘Surprised and shocked’
The PPAR family of proteins helps regulate blood sugar and triglyceride levels. The rationale for evaluating PPAR agonists in AD is based on the hypothesis that sporadic AD is fundamentally an age-related metabolic disease.
T3D-959 is the first PPAR delta-activating compound to be developed for the treatment of AD. Uniquely, this drug also activates PPAR gamma, which may provide potential additive or synergistic effects in regulating dysfunctional brain glucose energy and lipid metabolism in AD.
The PIONEER tested three doses of T3D-959 (15 mg, 30 mg, and 45 mg) vs. placebo in 250 adults with mild to moderate AD (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 14-26, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)-Global 0.5-2.0, and Sum of Boxes [CDR-SB] ≥ 3.0). T3D-959 or placebo was taken once daily for 24 weeks.
In the overall population, the primary endpoints – Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) – were not met.
“Plain and simple, when we saw this data, we were surprised and shocked,” said Dr. Didsbury, and wondered, “How can placebo be doing so well on a 6-month AD trial?”
“We suspect the presence of non-AD subjects in the trial based on the lower-than-typical number of ApoE4 positive subjects, increased cognitive performance and learning effects observed, and only 45% of trial subjects having a low pTau-217 ratio, a biomarker indicating that they would have no AD pathology plasma,” he explained.
Plasma baseline pTau-217 ratio correlates with AD risk and severity and is a marker of AD pathology; in the subgroup with high pTau-217 ratio, the ADAS-Cog11 endpoint was met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group vs. the placebo group (–0.74 vs. 1.27; P = .112), “consistent with clinical benefit,” Dr. Didsbury noted.
The secondary endpoint of change in plasma amyloid-beta (Ab)42/40 ratio was also met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group – increasing at week 24 with T3D-959 vs. decreasing with placebo (P = .0206), with even greater improvement in the high pTau-217 ratio group. In this group, improvement of Ab42/40 ratio was nearly twofold greater than the overall group.
T3D-959 had a similar magnitude of effect on Ab42/40 as lecanemab (Leqembi) at 6 months, the researchers point out in their late-breaking abstract.
Biomarkers of all three AD diagnostic criteria (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) were improved, as well as markers of inflammation, insulin resistance, and dysfunctional lipid metabolism – results that demonstrate “peripheral targeted engagement,” Dr. Didsbury said.
“Along with the strong safety profile of T3D-959, the evidence supports a larger study evaluating T3D-959 30 mg/day in patients with mild to moderate AD and a baseline plasma p-Tau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio of ≥ 0.015,” the researchers conclude in their abstract.
Lessons learned
Commenting on the research for this article, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “the idea behind this treatment is that impaired glucose metabolism in the brain leads to toxic misfolded proteins, including amyloid and tau in people with Alzheimer’s disease.”
“The treatment focuses on improving regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism in the brain. This is one of more than 140 approaches that are being tested today to target the biological drivers and contributors to Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Because biomarkers were not used to enroll participants, “there was a high population of people in the trial who did not have Alzheimer’s. This very likely contributed to the negative result,” she noted.
However, the results also suggest that those taking the drug who had a high pTau217 ratio – and are likely to have brain amyloid plaques – had less cognitive decline, she noted.
Lessons learned from this negative trial include “the proper dose to balance efficacy and safety, and how to screen participants for their next study,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Didsbury and Dr. Edelmayer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Topline results provide “clinical evidence of a modification of multiple AD pathologies associated with amyloid plaque burden,” said John Didsbury, PhD, chief executive officer of T3D Therapeutics Inc., the company developing the drug.
While the primary cognitive endpoints were not met in the overall study population, the data suggest that a “high plasma pTau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio, a marker of AD pathology, likely defines an AD population responsive to T3D-959 therapy,” Dr. Didsbury said.
He said it’s important to note that no PET imaging (amyloid/tau) or biomarkers were used as entry criteria and, in hindsight, some participants likely did not have AD, which likely played a role in the negative primary outcome.
The findings from the PIONEER study were presented at the annual Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
‘Surprised and shocked’
The PPAR family of proteins helps regulate blood sugar and triglyceride levels. The rationale for evaluating PPAR agonists in AD is based on the hypothesis that sporadic AD is fundamentally an age-related metabolic disease.
T3D-959 is the first PPAR delta-activating compound to be developed for the treatment of AD. Uniquely, this drug also activates PPAR gamma, which may provide potential additive or synergistic effects in regulating dysfunctional brain glucose energy and lipid metabolism in AD.
The PIONEER tested three doses of T3D-959 (15 mg, 30 mg, and 45 mg) vs. placebo in 250 adults with mild to moderate AD (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 14-26, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)-Global 0.5-2.0, and Sum of Boxes [CDR-SB] ≥ 3.0). T3D-959 or placebo was taken once daily for 24 weeks.
In the overall population, the primary endpoints – Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) – were not met.
“Plain and simple, when we saw this data, we were surprised and shocked,” said Dr. Didsbury, and wondered, “How can placebo be doing so well on a 6-month AD trial?”
“We suspect the presence of non-AD subjects in the trial based on the lower-than-typical number of ApoE4 positive subjects, increased cognitive performance and learning effects observed, and only 45% of trial subjects having a low pTau-217 ratio, a biomarker indicating that they would have no AD pathology plasma,” he explained.
Plasma baseline pTau-217 ratio correlates with AD risk and severity and is a marker of AD pathology; in the subgroup with high pTau-217 ratio, the ADAS-Cog11 endpoint was met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group vs. the placebo group (–0.74 vs. 1.27; P = .112), “consistent with clinical benefit,” Dr. Didsbury noted.
The secondary endpoint of change in plasma amyloid-beta (Ab)42/40 ratio was also met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group – increasing at week 24 with T3D-959 vs. decreasing with placebo (P = .0206), with even greater improvement in the high pTau-217 ratio group. In this group, improvement of Ab42/40 ratio was nearly twofold greater than the overall group.
T3D-959 had a similar magnitude of effect on Ab42/40 as lecanemab (Leqembi) at 6 months, the researchers point out in their late-breaking abstract.
Biomarkers of all three AD diagnostic criteria (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) were improved, as well as markers of inflammation, insulin resistance, and dysfunctional lipid metabolism – results that demonstrate “peripheral targeted engagement,” Dr. Didsbury said.
“Along with the strong safety profile of T3D-959, the evidence supports a larger study evaluating T3D-959 30 mg/day in patients with mild to moderate AD and a baseline plasma p-Tau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio of ≥ 0.015,” the researchers conclude in their abstract.
Lessons learned
Commenting on the research for this article, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “the idea behind this treatment is that impaired glucose metabolism in the brain leads to toxic misfolded proteins, including amyloid and tau in people with Alzheimer’s disease.”
“The treatment focuses on improving regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism in the brain. This is one of more than 140 approaches that are being tested today to target the biological drivers and contributors to Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Because biomarkers were not used to enroll participants, “there was a high population of people in the trial who did not have Alzheimer’s. This very likely contributed to the negative result,” she noted.
However, the results also suggest that those taking the drug who had a high pTau217 ratio – and are likely to have brain amyloid plaques – had less cognitive decline, she noted.
Lessons learned from this negative trial include “the proper dose to balance efficacy and safety, and how to screen participants for their next study,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Didsbury and Dr. Edelmayer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CTAD 2023
Heart rate variability: Are we ignoring a harbinger of health?
A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.
Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?
A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.
More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
What is HRV?
HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.
Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.
As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.
That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
Why monitor HRV?
But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.
Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.
The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.
To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.
I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.
A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.
Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.
My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.
Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.
Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.
Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.
I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.
So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.
I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.
Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.
George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.
Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?
A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.
More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
What is HRV?
HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.
Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.
As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.
That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
Why monitor HRV?
But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.
Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.
The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.
To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.
I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.
A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.
Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.
My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.
Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.
Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.
Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.
I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.
So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.
I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.
Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.
George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.
Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?
A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.
More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
What is HRV?
HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.
Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.
As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.
That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
Why monitor HRV?
But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.
Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.
The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.
To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.
I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.
A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.
Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.
My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.
Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.
Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.
Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.
I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.
So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.
I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.
Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.
George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lag in antidepressant treatment response explained?
BARCELONA – , new imaging data suggest.
In a double-blind study, more than 30 volunteers were randomly assigned to the SSRI escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks. Using PET imaging, the investigators found that over time, synaptic density significantly increased significantly in the neocortex and hippocampus but only in patients taking the active drug.
The results point to two conclusions, said study investigator Gitta Moos Knudsen, MD, PhD, clinical professor and chief physician at the department of clinical medicine, neurology, psychiatry and sensory sciences at Copenhagen (Denmark) University Hospital.
First, they indicate that SSRIs increase synaptic density in brain areas critically involved in depression, a finding that would go some way to indicating that the synaptic density in the brain may be involved in how antidepressants function, “which would give us a target for developing novel drugs against depression,” said Dr. Knudsen.
“Secondly, our data suggest synapses build up over a period of weeks, which would explain why the effects of these drugs take time to kick in,” she added.
The findings were presented at the 36th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and simultaneously published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
Marked increase in synaptic density
SSRIs are widely used for depression as well as anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is thought that they act via neuroplasticity and synaptic remodeling to improve cognition and emotion processing. However, the investigators note clinical evidence is lacking.
For the study, the researchers randomly assigned healthy individuals to either 20-mg escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks.
They performed PET with the 11C-UCB-J tracer, which allows imaging of the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) in the brain, synaptic density, as well as changes in density over time, in the hippocampus and neocortex.
Between May 2020 and October 2021, 17 individuals were assigned to escitalopram and 15 to placebo. There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of age, sex, and PET-related variables. Serum escitalopram measurements confirmed that all participants in the active drug group were compliant.
When synaptic density was assessed at a single time point, an average of 29 days after the intervention, there were no significant differences between the escitalopram and placebo groups in either the neocortex (P = .41) or in the hippocampus (P = .26).
However, when they performed a secondary analysis of the time-dependent effect on SV2A levels, they found a marked difference between the two study groups.
Compared with the placebo group, participants taking escitalopram had a marked increase in synaptic density in both the neocortex (rp value, 0.58; P = .003) and the hippocampus (rp value, 0.41; P = .048).
In contrast, there were no significant changes in synaptic density in either the neocortex (rp value, –0.01; P = .95) or the hippocampus (rp value, –0.06; P = .62) in the hippocampus.
“That is consistent with our clinical observation that it takes time to evolve synaptic density, along with clinical improvement. Does that mean that the increase in synaptic density is a precondition for improvement in symptoms? We don’t know,” said Dr. Knudsen.
Exciting but not conclusive
Session co-chair Oliver Howes, MD, PhD, professor of molecular psychiatry, King’s College London, agreed that the results do not prove the gradual increase in synaptic density the treatment response lag with SSRIs.
“We definitely don’t yet have all the data to know one way or the other,” he said in an interview.
Another potential hypothesis, he said, is that SSRIs are causing shifts in underlying brain circuits that lead to cognitive changes before there is a discernable improvement in mood.
Indeed, Dr. Howes suggested that increases in synaptic density and cognitive changes related to SSRI use are not necessarily dependent on each other and could even be unrelated.
Also commenting on the research, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that the “delay in therapeutic action of antidepressants has been a puzzle to psychiatrists ever since they were first discerned over 50 years ago. So, these new data in humans, that use cutting edge brain imaging to demonstrate an increase in brain connections developing over the period that the depression lifts, are very exciting.”
Dr. Nutt added that the results provide further evidence that “enhancing serotonin function in the brain can have enduring health benefits.”
Funding support was provided by the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Lundbeck Foundation, Rigshospitalet, and the Swedish Research Council. Open access funding provided by Royal Library, Copenhagen University Library.
Dr. Knudsen declares relationships with Sage Biogen, H. Lundbeck, Onsero, Pangea, Gilgamesh, Abbvie, and PureTechHealth. Another author declares relationships with Cambridge Cognition and PopReach via Cambridge Enterprise.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – , new imaging data suggest.
In a double-blind study, more than 30 volunteers were randomly assigned to the SSRI escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks. Using PET imaging, the investigators found that over time, synaptic density significantly increased significantly in the neocortex and hippocampus but only in patients taking the active drug.
The results point to two conclusions, said study investigator Gitta Moos Knudsen, MD, PhD, clinical professor and chief physician at the department of clinical medicine, neurology, psychiatry and sensory sciences at Copenhagen (Denmark) University Hospital.
First, they indicate that SSRIs increase synaptic density in brain areas critically involved in depression, a finding that would go some way to indicating that the synaptic density in the brain may be involved in how antidepressants function, “which would give us a target for developing novel drugs against depression,” said Dr. Knudsen.
“Secondly, our data suggest synapses build up over a period of weeks, which would explain why the effects of these drugs take time to kick in,” she added.
The findings were presented at the 36th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and simultaneously published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
Marked increase in synaptic density
SSRIs are widely used for depression as well as anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is thought that they act via neuroplasticity and synaptic remodeling to improve cognition and emotion processing. However, the investigators note clinical evidence is lacking.
For the study, the researchers randomly assigned healthy individuals to either 20-mg escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks.
They performed PET with the 11C-UCB-J tracer, which allows imaging of the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) in the brain, synaptic density, as well as changes in density over time, in the hippocampus and neocortex.
Between May 2020 and October 2021, 17 individuals were assigned to escitalopram and 15 to placebo. There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of age, sex, and PET-related variables. Serum escitalopram measurements confirmed that all participants in the active drug group were compliant.
When synaptic density was assessed at a single time point, an average of 29 days after the intervention, there were no significant differences between the escitalopram and placebo groups in either the neocortex (P = .41) or in the hippocampus (P = .26).
However, when they performed a secondary analysis of the time-dependent effect on SV2A levels, they found a marked difference between the two study groups.
Compared with the placebo group, participants taking escitalopram had a marked increase in synaptic density in both the neocortex (rp value, 0.58; P = .003) and the hippocampus (rp value, 0.41; P = .048).
In contrast, there were no significant changes in synaptic density in either the neocortex (rp value, –0.01; P = .95) or the hippocampus (rp value, –0.06; P = .62) in the hippocampus.
“That is consistent with our clinical observation that it takes time to evolve synaptic density, along with clinical improvement. Does that mean that the increase in synaptic density is a precondition for improvement in symptoms? We don’t know,” said Dr. Knudsen.
Exciting but not conclusive
Session co-chair Oliver Howes, MD, PhD, professor of molecular psychiatry, King’s College London, agreed that the results do not prove the gradual increase in synaptic density the treatment response lag with SSRIs.
“We definitely don’t yet have all the data to know one way or the other,” he said in an interview.
Another potential hypothesis, he said, is that SSRIs are causing shifts in underlying brain circuits that lead to cognitive changes before there is a discernable improvement in mood.
Indeed, Dr. Howes suggested that increases in synaptic density and cognitive changes related to SSRI use are not necessarily dependent on each other and could even be unrelated.
Also commenting on the research, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that the “delay in therapeutic action of antidepressants has been a puzzle to psychiatrists ever since they were first discerned over 50 years ago. So, these new data in humans, that use cutting edge brain imaging to demonstrate an increase in brain connections developing over the period that the depression lifts, are very exciting.”
Dr. Nutt added that the results provide further evidence that “enhancing serotonin function in the brain can have enduring health benefits.”
Funding support was provided by the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Lundbeck Foundation, Rigshospitalet, and the Swedish Research Council. Open access funding provided by Royal Library, Copenhagen University Library.
Dr. Knudsen declares relationships with Sage Biogen, H. Lundbeck, Onsero, Pangea, Gilgamesh, Abbvie, and PureTechHealth. Another author declares relationships with Cambridge Cognition and PopReach via Cambridge Enterprise.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – , new imaging data suggest.
In a double-blind study, more than 30 volunteers were randomly assigned to the SSRI escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks. Using PET imaging, the investigators found that over time, synaptic density significantly increased significantly in the neocortex and hippocampus but only in patients taking the active drug.
The results point to two conclusions, said study investigator Gitta Moos Knudsen, MD, PhD, clinical professor and chief physician at the department of clinical medicine, neurology, psychiatry and sensory sciences at Copenhagen (Denmark) University Hospital.
First, they indicate that SSRIs increase synaptic density in brain areas critically involved in depression, a finding that would go some way to indicating that the synaptic density in the brain may be involved in how antidepressants function, “which would give us a target for developing novel drugs against depression,” said Dr. Knudsen.
“Secondly, our data suggest synapses build up over a period of weeks, which would explain why the effects of these drugs take time to kick in,” she added.
The findings were presented at the 36th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and simultaneously published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
Marked increase in synaptic density
SSRIs are widely used for depression as well as anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is thought that they act via neuroplasticity and synaptic remodeling to improve cognition and emotion processing. However, the investigators note clinical evidence is lacking.
For the study, the researchers randomly assigned healthy individuals to either 20-mg escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks.
They performed PET with the 11C-UCB-J tracer, which allows imaging of the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) in the brain, synaptic density, as well as changes in density over time, in the hippocampus and neocortex.
Between May 2020 and October 2021, 17 individuals were assigned to escitalopram and 15 to placebo. There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of age, sex, and PET-related variables. Serum escitalopram measurements confirmed that all participants in the active drug group were compliant.
When synaptic density was assessed at a single time point, an average of 29 days after the intervention, there were no significant differences between the escitalopram and placebo groups in either the neocortex (P = .41) or in the hippocampus (P = .26).
However, when they performed a secondary analysis of the time-dependent effect on SV2A levels, they found a marked difference between the two study groups.
Compared with the placebo group, participants taking escitalopram had a marked increase in synaptic density in both the neocortex (rp value, 0.58; P = .003) and the hippocampus (rp value, 0.41; P = .048).
In contrast, there were no significant changes in synaptic density in either the neocortex (rp value, –0.01; P = .95) or the hippocampus (rp value, –0.06; P = .62) in the hippocampus.
“That is consistent with our clinical observation that it takes time to evolve synaptic density, along with clinical improvement. Does that mean that the increase in synaptic density is a precondition for improvement in symptoms? We don’t know,” said Dr. Knudsen.
Exciting but not conclusive
Session co-chair Oliver Howes, MD, PhD, professor of molecular psychiatry, King’s College London, agreed that the results do not prove the gradual increase in synaptic density the treatment response lag with SSRIs.
“We definitely don’t yet have all the data to know one way or the other,” he said in an interview.
Another potential hypothesis, he said, is that SSRIs are causing shifts in underlying brain circuits that lead to cognitive changes before there is a discernable improvement in mood.
Indeed, Dr. Howes suggested that increases in synaptic density and cognitive changes related to SSRI use are not necessarily dependent on each other and could even be unrelated.
Also commenting on the research, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that the “delay in therapeutic action of antidepressants has been a puzzle to psychiatrists ever since they were first discerned over 50 years ago. So, these new data in humans, that use cutting edge brain imaging to demonstrate an increase in brain connections developing over the period that the depression lifts, are very exciting.”
Dr. Nutt added that the results provide further evidence that “enhancing serotonin function in the brain can have enduring health benefits.”
Funding support was provided by the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Lundbeck Foundation, Rigshospitalet, and the Swedish Research Council. Open access funding provided by Royal Library, Copenhagen University Library.
Dr. Knudsen declares relationships with Sage Biogen, H. Lundbeck, Onsero, Pangea, Gilgamesh, Abbvie, and PureTechHealth. Another author declares relationships with Cambridge Cognition and PopReach via Cambridge Enterprise.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECNP 2023
New meningococcal vaccine wins FDA approval
The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.
This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.
“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
One shot, five common types
“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.
Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.
The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.
The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.
This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.
“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
One shot, five common types
“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.
Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.
The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.
The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.
This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.
“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
One shot, five common types
“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.
Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.
The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.
The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Playing board games may slow cognitive decline, improve QoL
“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).
After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.
The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.
Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
Which games are best?
Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).
Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).
In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.
Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.
The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.
He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.
Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.
In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
Social and cognitive value
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.
Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.
There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.
“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”
But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.
“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”
Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).
After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.
The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.
Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
Which games are best?
Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).
Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).
In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.
Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.
The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.
He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.
Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.
In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
Social and cognitive value
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.
Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.
There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.
“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”
But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.
“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”
Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).
After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.
The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.
Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
Which games are best?
Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).
Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).
In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.
Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.
The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.
He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.
Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.
In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
Social and cognitive value
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.
Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.
There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.
“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”
But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.
“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”
Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Are migraine preventives underused in young adults?
, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.
“Approximately two-fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this did not differ between pediatric and adult neurologists,” Hannah F. J. Shapiro MD, of the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, and colleagues wrote in their study. “This finding suggests that pediatric neurologists are providing comparable care to adult neurologists for young adults with migraine; however, this may represent the underuse of preventive medications in this patient population.”
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 767 patients (mean age 20.3 years) at Mass General Brigham Hospital in Boston between 2017 and 2021 who received care from a pediatric or adult neurologist for episodic migraine. The majority of patients in the study were white (72.2%), non-Hispanic (82.1%) women (80.3%) with episodic migraine (72.8%), some of whom experienced a psychiatric comorbidity (12.7%), and had a 3.88 mean clinic visits for migraine. Researchers assessed prescription of migraine preventive medication as a primary outcome, with a secondary outcome of comparing the rate of migraine preventive prescriptions written by pediatric and adult neurologists.
Overall, 290 patients (37.8%) received care from a pediatric neurologist, and 131 of those 290 patients (45.2%) received preventive medications (95% confidence interval, 39.5%-51.0%). The remaining 477 patients received care from an adult neurologist; of these, 206 patients (43.2%) received preventive medications (95% CI, 39.0%-47.7%; P = .591). The most common preventive medication prescribed was topiramate, which was prescribed in 19.1% of cases by adult neurologists and 15.2% of cases by pediatric neurologists. Other preventive medications included tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and nortriptyline; pediatric neurologists prescribed amitriptyline more often than adult neurologists (14.5% vs. 5.5%; P < .001), and adult neurologists prescribed nortriptyline more often than pediatric neurologists (12.8% vs. 2.4%; P < .001).
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues performed a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of potential confounders, and found no significant association between clinician specialty and use of preventive medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.62-2.31), while factors such as female sex (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.07-2.66) and number of visits (aOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.49-1.80) carried associations with preventive medication use.
The finding that pediatric and adult neurologists use similar preventive medications is a positive one because “patients who continue care into adulthood with a pediatric neurologist should receive comparable care to the care they would receive with an adult neurologist,” Dr. Shapiro and colleagues said. “It is even more pertinent now for pediatric neurologists to have comfort prescribing preventive medication to young adults, as the newer calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway antagonists are currently only FDA approved for use in patients aged 18 years or older.”
Roadblocks may prevent adoption
M. Cristina Victorio, MD, a pediatric neurologist and director of the headache program at Akron (Ohio) Children’s, said in an interview that the study is well-designed, but the results cannot be generalized as the study is retrospective, was conducted at a single institution, and data about nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices were excluded from the analysis.
Another aspect of the study to consider is that episodic migraine, defined as between 0 and 14 migraine days per month, comprised most of the diagnoses in this study, while preventive medication is usually considered in patients with migraines occurring at least 6 days per month. “[I]f migraine is only once every other month or once a month, preventive treatment may not be recommended,” she said.
There is also the element of patient preference, which is “difficult to obtain” in a retrospective study, she noted.
Citing the authors’ comments about pediatric neurologists’ comfortability prescribing preventive medications, including CGRP antagonists, Dr. Victorio said she offers CGRP antagonists to “young adult patients who have failed at least two of the guideline-recommended preventive medications.”
However, pediatric neurologists may encounter roadblocks to prescribing these medications. “A big challenge is access, as it requires prior authorization as well as writing a letter of appeal or medical necessity, which can be a nuisance for clinicians who are already inundated with clinical responsibilities,” she said.
More education is needed
“As a pediatric headache specialist and knowing the results of this study, my colleagues and I have a role in educating all clinicians as well as trainees on headache management to improve and provide optimal care for young adult patients with migraine,” Dr. Victorio said.
In her experience, more clinic visits usually mean a need for preventative medication, and psychiatric morbidities are common. “I differ in the sense that as a headache specialist I am comfortable offering various preventive treatment options when indicated, so I do not believe I am underutilizing,” she said.
Dr. Victorio said she prescribes topiramate, amitriptyline, and propranolol as migraine preventatives for adolescents and young adults, but recommends cyproheptadine for younger children “due to lesser side effects, tolerability, and convenience of formulation (both liquid and tablet forms are available), which can be challenging for younger children who are unable to swallow pills.”
“Cognizant that there are patients who are reluctant to take daily prescription medication and that consideration for preventive treatment includes patient’s preference, I include the use of nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices when discussing preventive treatment options,” she added, noting that children and adolescents “[m]ore often than not” prefer nutraceuticals like magnesium and vitamin B2.
“I think the bottom line is that all clinicians managing young adults with migraine should know when to consider starting preventive migraine medication,” Dr. Victorio said. “Not offering preventive treatment to young adults specifically for those who have frequent migraine attacks, or those who have severe migraine despite adequate acute treatment, or those with significant adverse reactions to acute medications will only put these patients at risk to progression to chronic migraine (meaning having migraine more often than not – at least 15 days per month), and increases headache-related disability and reduces quality of life.”
The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. This study was supported by Harvard University and an award from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Victorio reports being on the advisory board for Theranica Bio-electronics, has received honorarium serving as an author of the Merck Manual, and is involved in industry-sponsored clinical trials through Akron Children’s Hospital.
, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.
“Approximately two-fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this did not differ between pediatric and adult neurologists,” Hannah F. J. Shapiro MD, of the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, and colleagues wrote in their study. “This finding suggests that pediatric neurologists are providing comparable care to adult neurologists for young adults with migraine; however, this may represent the underuse of preventive medications in this patient population.”
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 767 patients (mean age 20.3 years) at Mass General Brigham Hospital in Boston between 2017 and 2021 who received care from a pediatric or adult neurologist for episodic migraine. The majority of patients in the study were white (72.2%), non-Hispanic (82.1%) women (80.3%) with episodic migraine (72.8%), some of whom experienced a psychiatric comorbidity (12.7%), and had a 3.88 mean clinic visits for migraine. Researchers assessed prescription of migraine preventive medication as a primary outcome, with a secondary outcome of comparing the rate of migraine preventive prescriptions written by pediatric and adult neurologists.
Overall, 290 patients (37.8%) received care from a pediatric neurologist, and 131 of those 290 patients (45.2%) received preventive medications (95% confidence interval, 39.5%-51.0%). The remaining 477 patients received care from an adult neurologist; of these, 206 patients (43.2%) received preventive medications (95% CI, 39.0%-47.7%; P = .591). The most common preventive medication prescribed was topiramate, which was prescribed in 19.1% of cases by adult neurologists and 15.2% of cases by pediatric neurologists. Other preventive medications included tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and nortriptyline; pediatric neurologists prescribed amitriptyline more often than adult neurologists (14.5% vs. 5.5%; P < .001), and adult neurologists prescribed nortriptyline more often than pediatric neurologists (12.8% vs. 2.4%; P < .001).
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues performed a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of potential confounders, and found no significant association between clinician specialty and use of preventive medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.62-2.31), while factors such as female sex (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.07-2.66) and number of visits (aOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.49-1.80) carried associations with preventive medication use.
The finding that pediatric and adult neurologists use similar preventive medications is a positive one because “patients who continue care into adulthood with a pediatric neurologist should receive comparable care to the care they would receive with an adult neurologist,” Dr. Shapiro and colleagues said. “It is even more pertinent now for pediatric neurologists to have comfort prescribing preventive medication to young adults, as the newer calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway antagonists are currently only FDA approved for use in patients aged 18 years or older.”
Roadblocks may prevent adoption
M. Cristina Victorio, MD, a pediatric neurologist and director of the headache program at Akron (Ohio) Children’s, said in an interview that the study is well-designed, but the results cannot be generalized as the study is retrospective, was conducted at a single institution, and data about nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices were excluded from the analysis.
Another aspect of the study to consider is that episodic migraine, defined as between 0 and 14 migraine days per month, comprised most of the diagnoses in this study, while preventive medication is usually considered in patients with migraines occurring at least 6 days per month. “[I]f migraine is only once every other month or once a month, preventive treatment may not be recommended,” she said.
There is also the element of patient preference, which is “difficult to obtain” in a retrospective study, she noted.
Citing the authors’ comments about pediatric neurologists’ comfortability prescribing preventive medications, including CGRP antagonists, Dr. Victorio said she offers CGRP antagonists to “young adult patients who have failed at least two of the guideline-recommended preventive medications.”
However, pediatric neurologists may encounter roadblocks to prescribing these medications. “A big challenge is access, as it requires prior authorization as well as writing a letter of appeal or medical necessity, which can be a nuisance for clinicians who are already inundated with clinical responsibilities,” she said.
More education is needed
“As a pediatric headache specialist and knowing the results of this study, my colleagues and I have a role in educating all clinicians as well as trainees on headache management to improve and provide optimal care for young adult patients with migraine,” Dr. Victorio said.
In her experience, more clinic visits usually mean a need for preventative medication, and psychiatric morbidities are common. “I differ in the sense that as a headache specialist I am comfortable offering various preventive treatment options when indicated, so I do not believe I am underutilizing,” she said.
Dr. Victorio said she prescribes topiramate, amitriptyline, and propranolol as migraine preventatives for adolescents and young adults, but recommends cyproheptadine for younger children “due to lesser side effects, tolerability, and convenience of formulation (both liquid and tablet forms are available), which can be challenging for younger children who are unable to swallow pills.”
“Cognizant that there are patients who are reluctant to take daily prescription medication and that consideration for preventive treatment includes patient’s preference, I include the use of nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices when discussing preventive treatment options,” she added, noting that children and adolescents “[m]ore often than not” prefer nutraceuticals like magnesium and vitamin B2.
“I think the bottom line is that all clinicians managing young adults with migraine should know when to consider starting preventive migraine medication,” Dr. Victorio said. “Not offering preventive treatment to young adults specifically for those who have frequent migraine attacks, or those who have severe migraine despite adequate acute treatment, or those with significant adverse reactions to acute medications will only put these patients at risk to progression to chronic migraine (meaning having migraine more often than not – at least 15 days per month), and increases headache-related disability and reduces quality of life.”
The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. This study was supported by Harvard University and an award from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Victorio reports being on the advisory board for Theranica Bio-electronics, has received honorarium serving as an author of the Merck Manual, and is involved in industry-sponsored clinical trials through Akron Children’s Hospital.
, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.
“Approximately two-fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this did not differ between pediatric and adult neurologists,” Hannah F. J. Shapiro MD, of the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, and colleagues wrote in their study. “This finding suggests that pediatric neurologists are providing comparable care to adult neurologists for young adults with migraine; however, this may represent the underuse of preventive medications in this patient population.”
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 767 patients (mean age 20.3 years) at Mass General Brigham Hospital in Boston between 2017 and 2021 who received care from a pediatric or adult neurologist for episodic migraine. The majority of patients in the study were white (72.2%), non-Hispanic (82.1%) women (80.3%) with episodic migraine (72.8%), some of whom experienced a psychiatric comorbidity (12.7%), and had a 3.88 mean clinic visits for migraine. Researchers assessed prescription of migraine preventive medication as a primary outcome, with a secondary outcome of comparing the rate of migraine preventive prescriptions written by pediatric and adult neurologists.
Overall, 290 patients (37.8%) received care from a pediatric neurologist, and 131 of those 290 patients (45.2%) received preventive medications (95% confidence interval, 39.5%-51.0%). The remaining 477 patients received care from an adult neurologist; of these, 206 patients (43.2%) received preventive medications (95% CI, 39.0%-47.7%; P = .591). The most common preventive medication prescribed was topiramate, which was prescribed in 19.1% of cases by adult neurologists and 15.2% of cases by pediatric neurologists. Other preventive medications included tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and nortriptyline; pediatric neurologists prescribed amitriptyline more often than adult neurologists (14.5% vs. 5.5%; P < .001), and adult neurologists prescribed nortriptyline more often than pediatric neurologists (12.8% vs. 2.4%; P < .001).
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues performed a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of potential confounders, and found no significant association between clinician specialty and use of preventive medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.62-2.31), while factors such as female sex (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.07-2.66) and number of visits (aOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.49-1.80) carried associations with preventive medication use.
The finding that pediatric and adult neurologists use similar preventive medications is a positive one because “patients who continue care into adulthood with a pediatric neurologist should receive comparable care to the care they would receive with an adult neurologist,” Dr. Shapiro and colleagues said. “It is even more pertinent now for pediatric neurologists to have comfort prescribing preventive medication to young adults, as the newer calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway antagonists are currently only FDA approved for use in patients aged 18 years or older.”
Roadblocks may prevent adoption
M. Cristina Victorio, MD, a pediatric neurologist and director of the headache program at Akron (Ohio) Children’s, said in an interview that the study is well-designed, but the results cannot be generalized as the study is retrospective, was conducted at a single institution, and data about nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices were excluded from the analysis.
Another aspect of the study to consider is that episodic migraine, defined as between 0 and 14 migraine days per month, comprised most of the diagnoses in this study, while preventive medication is usually considered in patients with migraines occurring at least 6 days per month. “[I]f migraine is only once every other month or once a month, preventive treatment may not be recommended,” she said.
There is also the element of patient preference, which is “difficult to obtain” in a retrospective study, she noted.
Citing the authors’ comments about pediatric neurologists’ comfortability prescribing preventive medications, including CGRP antagonists, Dr. Victorio said she offers CGRP antagonists to “young adult patients who have failed at least two of the guideline-recommended preventive medications.”
However, pediatric neurologists may encounter roadblocks to prescribing these medications. “A big challenge is access, as it requires prior authorization as well as writing a letter of appeal or medical necessity, which can be a nuisance for clinicians who are already inundated with clinical responsibilities,” she said.
More education is needed
“As a pediatric headache specialist and knowing the results of this study, my colleagues and I have a role in educating all clinicians as well as trainees on headache management to improve and provide optimal care for young adult patients with migraine,” Dr. Victorio said.
In her experience, more clinic visits usually mean a need for preventative medication, and psychiatric morbidities are common. “I differ in the sense that as a headache specialist I am comfortable offering various preventive treatment options when indicated, so I do not believe I am underutilizing,” she said.
Dr. Victorio said she prescribes topiramate, amitriptyline, and propranolol as migraine preventatives for adolescents and young adults, but recommends cyproheptadine for younger children “due to lesser side effects, tolerability, and convenience of formulation (both liquid and tablet forms are available), which can be challenging for younger children who are unable to swallow pills.”
“Cognizant that there are patients who are reluctant to take daily prescription medication and that consideration for preventive treatment includes patient’s preference, I include the use of nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices when discussing preventive treatment options,” she added, noting that children and adolescents “[m]ore often than not” prefer nutraceuticals like magnesium and vitamin B2.
“I think the bottom line is that all clinicians managing young adults with migraine should know when to consider starting preventive migraine medication,” Dr. Victorio said. “Not offering preventive treatment to young adults specifically for those who have frequent migraine attacks, or those who have severe migraine despite adequate acute treatment, or those with significant adverse reactions to acute medications will only put these patients at risk to progression to chronic migraine (meaning having migraine more often than not – at least 15 days per month), and increases headache-related disability and reduces quality of life.”
The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. This study was supported by Harvard University and an award from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Victorio reports being on the advisory board for Theranica Bio-electronics, has received honorarium serving as an author of the Merck Manual, and is involved in industry-sponsored clinical trials through Akron Children’s Hospital.
FROM HEADACHE
Autism spectrum disorders
According to the CDC, the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has gone from roughly 1 in 68 children in 2010 to 1 in 36 children in 2020.1 This is nearly a 50% increase over that 10-year period. Over the last several years, there has been evidence suggesting that increasing numbers of young people with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions identify as transgender or gender diverse.2 Experts agree more careful attention must be paid to these patients.
This includes things such as difficulty with communication, possible concrete thinking, and obsessive interests. While earlier research has shown a higher incidence of ASD in those referred to specialized gender medical clinics, it is important to realize that not all of these youth are seeking medical care. They may be brought to the attention of a primary care pediatrician (PCP) if the child has discussed their gender identity at home. It is important that PCPs approach these young people with an open mind and address any coexisting mental health conditions. PCPs must be careful not to dismiss any gender identity concerns as another of the patient’s “obsessions”; rather, they should ensure the patient receives the appropriate mental health care that they need to explore these concerns. One challenge for PCPs is that there is a dearth of mental health professionals who have experience in working with young people who have both gender dysphoria and a neurodivergent condition.
For those clinicians who provide gender-affirming medical care to these young people, it is imperative that they have a thorough understanding of the patient’s gender identity and medical goals before starting any treatment. This may require extensive collaboration with the patient’s mental health provider. The clinician providing medical care may also choose to proceed slower with the introduction of hormones and their subsequent dosing to allow the young person time to continue discussing their effects with their mental health provider. To help clinicians, Dr. John Strang and a multidisciplinary group of collaborators developed a set of guidelines for co-occurring ASD and gender dysphoria in adolescents.3 More recently, Dr. Strang and other collaborators have also developed a questionnaire that can be used by clinicians in the care of these patients.4 The goal of this questionnaire is to allow the young people to “communicate their experiences and needs in a report format attuned to common autistic thinking and communication styles.”
In summary, pediatricians and those who care for children and adolescents need to be aware of the increased association between those with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions and gender dysphoria. To ensure that these young people receive optimal care, it is important to connect them to experts (if possible) in coexisting ASD and gender dysphoria. If such experts are not readily available, the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center has developed a resource for providing an affirmative approach to care for these young people.5 While more research is needed to better understand young people with coexisting ASD (or other neurodivergent conditions), taking an individualized approach to their care can help ensure optimal outcomes.
Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.
References
1. Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html.
2. Glidden D et al. Gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(1):3-14. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.10.003.
3. Strang JF et al. Initial clinical guidelines for co-occurring autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria or incongruence in adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2018;47(1):105-15. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462.
4. Strang JF et. al. The Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire: A Community-Developed Clinical, Research, and Self-Advocacy Tool for Autistic Transgender and Gender-Diverse Young Adults. Autism Adulthood. 2023 Jun 1;5(2):175-90. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0002.
5. National LGBT Health Education Center. Neurodiversity & gender-diverse youth: An affirming approach to care 2020. https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/neurodiversity-gender-diverse-youth-an-affirming-approach-to-care-2020/download
According to the CDC, the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has gone from roughly 1 in 68 children in 2010 to 1 in 36 children in 2020.1 This is nearly a 50% increase over that 10-year period. Over the last several years, there has been evidence suggesting that increasing numbers of young people with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions identify as transgender or gender diverse.2 Experts agree more careful attention must be paid to these patients.
This includes things such as difficulty with communication, possible concrete thinking, and obsessive interests. While earlier research has shown a higher incidence of ASD in those referred to specialized gender medical clinics, it is important to realize that not all of these youth are seeking medical care. They may be brought to the attention of a primary care pediatrician (PCP) if the child has discussed their gender identity at home. It is important that PCPs approach these young people with an open mind and address any coexisting mental health conditions. PCPs must be careful not to dismiss any gender identity concerns as another of the patient’s “obsessions”; rather, they should ensure the patient receives the appropriate mental health care that they need to explore these concerns. One challenge for PCPs is that there is a dearth of mental health professionals who have experience in working with young people who have both gender dysphoria and a neurodivergent condition.
For those clinicians who provide gender-affirming medical care to these young people, it is imperative that they have a thorough understanding of the patient’s gender identity and medical goals before starting any treatment. This may require extensive collaboration with the patient’s mental health provider. The clinician providing medical care may also choose to proceed slower with the introduction of hormones and their subsequent dosing to allow the young person time to continue discussing their effects with their mental health provider. To help clinicians, Dr. John Strang and a multidisciplinary group of collaborators developed a set of guidelines for co-occurring ASD and gender dysphoria in adolescents.3 More recently, Dr. Strang and other collaborators have also developed a questionnaire that can be used by clinicians in the care of these patients.4 The goal of this questionnaire is to allow the young people to “communicate their experiences and needs in a report format attuned to common autistic thinking and communication styles.”
In summary, pediatricians and those who care for children and adolescents need to be aware of the increased association between those with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions and gender dysphoria. To ensure that these young people receive optimal care, it is important to connect them to experts (if possible) in coexisting ASD and gender dysphoria. If such experts are not readily available, the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center has developed a resource for providing an affirmative approach to care for these young people.5 While more research is needed to better understand young people with coexisting ASD (or other neurodivergent conditions), taking an individualized approach to their care can help ensure optimal outcomes.
Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.
References
1. Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html.
2. Glidden D et al. Gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(1):3-14. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.10.003.
3. Strang JF et al. Initial clinical guidelines for co-occurring autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria or incongruence in adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2018;47(1):105-15. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462.
4. Strang JF et. al. The Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire: A Community-Developed Clinical, Research, and Self-Advocacy Tool for Autistic Transgender and Gender-Diverse Young Adults. Autism Adulthood. 2023 Jun 1;5(2):175-90. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0002.
5. National LGBT Health Education Center. Neurodiversity & gender-diverse youth: An affirming approach to care 2020. https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/neurodiversity-gender-diverse-youth-an-affirming-approach-to-care-2020/download
According to the CDC, the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has gone from roughly 1 in 68 children in 2010 to 1 in 36 children in 2020.1 This is nearly a 50% increase over that 10-year period. Over the last several years, there has been evidence suggesting that increasing numbers of young people with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions identify as transgender or gender diverse.2 Experts agree more careful attention must be paid to these patients.
This includes things such as difficulty with communication, possible concrete thinking, and obsessive interests. While earlier research has shown a higher incidence of ASD in those referred to specialized gender medical clinics, it is important to realize that not all of these youth are seeking medical care. They may be brought to the attention of a primary care pediatrician (PCP) if the child has discussed their gender identity at home. It is important that PCPs approach these young people with an open mind and address any coexisting mental health conditions. PCPs must be careful not to dismiss any gender identity concerns as another of the patient’s “obsessions”; rather, they should ensure the patient receives the appropriate mental health care that they need to explore these concerns. One challenge for PCPs is that there is a dearth of mental health professionals who have experience in working with young people who have both gender dysphoria and a neurodivergent condition.
For those clinicians who provide gender-affirming medical care to these young people, it is imperative that they have a thorough understanding of the patient’s gender identity and medical goals before starting any treatment. This may require extensive collaboration with the patient’s mental health provider. The clinician providing medical care may also choose to proceed slower with the introduction of hormones and their subsequent dosing to allow the young person time to continue discussing their effects with their mental health provider. To help clinicians, Dr. John Strang and a multidisciplinary group of collaborators developed a set of guidelines for co-occurring ASD and gender dysphoria in adolescents.3 More recently, Dr. Strang and other collaborators have also developed a questionnaire that can be used by clinicians in the care of these patients.4 The goal of this questionnaire is to allow the young people to “communicate their experiences and needs in a report format attuned to common autistic thinking and communication styles.”
In summary, pediatricians and those who care for children and adolescents need to be aware of the increased association between those with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions and gender dysphoria. To ensure that these young people receive optimal care, it is important to connect them to experts (if possible) in coexisting ASD and gender dysphoria. If such experts are not readily available, the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center has developed a resource for providing an affirmative approach to care for these young people.5 While more research is needed to better understand young people with coexisting ASD (or other neurodivergent conditions), taking an individualized approach to their care can help ensure optimal outcomes.
Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.
References
1. Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html.
2. Glidden D et al. Gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(1):3-14. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.10.003.
3. Strang JF et al. Initial clinical guidelines for co-occurring autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria or incongruence in adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2018;47(1):105-15. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462.
4. Strang JF et. al. The Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire: A Community-Developed Clinical, Research, and Self-Advocacy Tool for Autistic Transgender and Gender-Diverse Young Adults. Autism Adulthood. 2023 Jun 1;5(2):175-90. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0002.
5. National LGBT Health Education Center. Neurodiversity & gender-diverse youth: An affirming approach to care 2020. https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/neurodiversity-gender-diverse-youth-an-affirming-approach-to-care-2020/download
High and low HDL cholesterol levels linked to dementia risk
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Obesity linked to multiple ills in MS study
MILAN – Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m2) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).
Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).
Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”
The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.
Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.
Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.
The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.
While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.
As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.
A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”
However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
Interpretation and commentary
Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.
What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.
In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”
Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.
Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”
He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”
Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”
However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.
Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”
As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”
According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”
Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.
This article was updated 10/20/23.
MILAN – Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m2) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).
Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).
Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”
The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.
Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.
Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.
The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.
While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.
As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.
A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”
However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
Interpretation and commentary
Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.
What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.
In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”
Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.
Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”
He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”
Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”
However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.
Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”
As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”
According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”
Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.
This article was updated 10/20/23.
MILAN – Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m2) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).
Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).
Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”
The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.
Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.
Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.
The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.
While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.
As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.
A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”
However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
Interpretation and commentary
Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.
What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.
In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”
Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.
Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”
He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”
Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”
However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.
Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”
As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”
According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”
Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.
This article was updated 10/20/23.
AT ECTRIMS 2023
Guillain-Barré syndrome: Honing treatment strategies
Recent insights into the pathophysiology of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) – which affects 1 or 2 persons for every 100,000 people annually, usually post infection – indicate that classic subtypes represent varying manifestations of a shared disease process. This knowledge is yielding new treatment strategies aimed at halting the illness in its tracks. Promising therapies include inhibitors of complement and, perhaps one day, the calcium-activated protease calpain.
Meanwhile, an association between COVID-19 and GBS has been debunked, whereas a small risk of GBS following adenovirus-vectored COVID vaccination is now accepted and quantified. Regardless of cause, the potential severity of GBS and variability in its presentation demand constant vigilance.
Shutting down the disease process
When patients present to an emergency department with sensory symptoms and increasing muscle weakness, “most of the damage has been or is being done,” said Michael P. Lunn, MBBS, MRCP, PhD, professor of clinical neurology, consultant neurologist, and clinical lead in neuroimmunology at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, who spoke at length about GBS with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. “The crucial reason that GBS treatment has not advanced significantly – and why we’re still slightly stuck where we are in terms of helping people get better more quickly – is that we need something that absolutely turns the disease off as patients come through the door.”
GBS is probably the best-understood autoimmune-mediated neurological disease, in some respects surpassing myasthenia gravis, Dr. Lunn said. “We know very frequently the organisms and stimuli that set off Guillain-Barré syndrome. We understand, to an extent, the immunology and how you break tolerance of the immune system so that an invading organism can provoke an immune response that damages peripheral nerves.”
Compared to what was known about GBS in decades past, neurologists now better understand how and where antibodies attack the nerve; how complement then damages the nodes of Ranvier and paranodes; and how an external attack results in sometimes irreparable internal nerve damage. “We’ve got a string, beginning to end, of understanding the disease,” declared Dr. Lunn.
Understanding of differences in the spectrum of pathology of GBS has led to additional diagnostic categories, said Dr. Lunn. Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, or typical GBS, represents the most common form in affluent Western nations. A motor variant was recognized in the 1980s; in the mid-1990s, Ho and colleagues described a cohort of patients in China who had acute motor axonal neuropathy and acute motor sensory axonal neuropathy1 – two forms that are particularly common throughout Asia and South America.
Shared mechanism
Based on the findings of electrophysiologic studies, Dr. Lunn said, experts traditionally believed that GBS attacked either axons themselves or their myelin sheaths. “That’s where the anti-ganglioside antibodies come in, providing targeting to nerve structures.” The dichotomous classification system, he added, was partially correct.
Then, through the 2010s and 2020s, neurophysiologist Antonio Uncini, MD, recognized, based partly on histologic studies by Ho and colleagues, that the myelin and axonal subtypes are both likely to stem from the same mechanism.2 When antibodies and complement damage the node of Ranvier, Dr. Lunn said, “the myelin gets stripped off and the conduction becomes slow. But then the myelin can return, and patients get better.” But if damage is severe, it severs the axon, resulting in unrecoverable motor axonal neuropathy. “It’s basically all the same spectrum of disease,” Dr. Lunn said. “Anti-ganglioside antibodies may account for different GBS ‘flavors,’ but the immunological attack all occurs at the node of Ranvier in one way or another.”
The foregoing insight has focused development efforts on the shared seminal pathway of all GBS subtypes and given rise to the concept of nodo-paranodopathy, which incorporates damage at either the node of Ranvier or nearby paranodes.3
Simultaneously, Spanish and French researchers began elucidating new antibodies responsible for neuropathology at the node of Ranvier.4 Anti-ganglioside antibodies have long been loosely associated with acute motor axonal neuropathy and poor outcomes, although, Dr. Lunn said, they fail to tell the full story. Anti-GQ1b antibodies are associated with the Miller-Fisher syndrome subtype, well recognized for its medical features: double vision, loss of tendon reflexes, and arm and leg weakness.
However, Dr. Lunn said, most GBS cases lack anti-ganglioside antibodies. In some GBS cases, antibodies attack neurofascin, contactins, and gliomedin, which are mainly adhesion proteins at nodes of Ranvier.
“Therefore,” Dr. Lunn said, “there must be an antibody-mediated attack of the node of Ranvier or the paranode. That’s an important series of discoveries, primarily because it helps us understand the immunological attack at the node of Ranvier, which goes along with what Dr. Uncini was saying. But it also divides off a group of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathies (CIDP) that present acutely and look initially, for all purposes, like GBS.”
Recognizing acute CIDP (A-CIDP) is critically important for clinicians, Dr. Lunn stressed, because it requires treatment with rituximab (the most commonly used option), steroids, or plasma exchange.
Key clues that distinguish A-CIDP from GBS include:
• A high level of cerebrospinal fluid protein.
• Very slow nerve conduction.
• Early muscle wasting (rare in GBS).
Recognizing CIDP and A-CIDP is crucial, said Dr. Lunn, because it begins to bring all the pathology back together to make sense of GBS. Neurologists have known for decades that, if one damages a nerve with antibodies, then binds complement to those antibodies, the complement punches holes in the affected cells, resulting in death. “But it wasn’t quite clear how those cells might die,” Dr. Lunn said.
After complement-induced injury, calcium-activated calpain permanently damages the entire internal axonal structure.5 Perhaps more important, a 2022 mouse study showed that complement-mediated damage could be directed to myelin or axons using the genetically programmed presence or absence of gangliosides to understand subsequent calpain-induced destruction in either axons or myelin.6
Some of the engineered mouse cells included ganglioside; others did not. “So you can have anti-ganglioside antibodies directed at one cell type or the other, which would, or would not, have calpain within them,” Dr. Lunn said. Investigators also showed that a calpain inhibitor (AK295) or overproduction of an endogenous inhibitor, calpastatin, prevented damage to both cell types.6All existing calpain inhibitors are unsuitable for clinical use because they are highly toxic. “But if you could inhibit calpain and stop it from being activated by calcium,” Dr. Lunn explained, “you would have a mechanism for stopping cell degradation during GBS. That would be an important future target for pharmacotherapy. That whole story – from the beginning to the end of GBS – has opened up options for treatment.”
Because complement bound to antibodies, set up by infection, plays a pivotal role, complement inhibitors have become an exciting area of research over the past decade. The 36-patient Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) trial showed that, after 6 months, significantly more eculizumab-treated patients could run, compared with placebo-treated patients.7
“No other trials of complement inhibitors have yet been completed,” Dr. Lunn said. “But several different complement inhibitors work at different places, in a very complicated immune process. One of the complement inhibitors will become transformative in treating GBS – preventing disability and improving recovery – in the not-very-distant future.”
Additional investigational treatments that have demonstrated early promise in eliminating problem antibodies faster include imlifidase (Idefirix [Hansa Biopharma]), which destroys antibodies, and Fc receptor inhibitors such as efgartigimod alfa-fcab (Vyvgart [argenx]), which push antibodies into the natural catabolic pathway.
“We’ve been stuck with plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for three or four decades,” Dr. Lunn said. “We now have a series of strategies by which we can completely turn off complement and resulting nerve damage. If we can find a calpain inhibitor that turns off the end of that pathway, we will make dramatic improvements. Our understanding of the immunopathology has changed enormously and influences pharmacotherapy going forward.”
Recap of diagnosis and treatment
For decades, the diagnosis of GBS has relied on the presence of symptoms, including progressive weakness and loss of reflexes and sensations. Nerve-conduction studies and cerebrospinal fluid evaluation can help confirm the diagnosis.
IVIg shortens recovery, said Dr. Lunn, although nothing cures GBS. “And that’s a common problem: Clinicians think that they’re going to give somebody IVIg, and the patient’s going to get better immediately.” When that doesn’t happen, he said, physicians are tempted to give a second immunoglobulin dose.
However, a study published in 2021 shows that a second IVIg dose does not result in faster or better improvement – only in a significant risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other thrombotic events 3 weeks later.8 Dr. Lunn noted that, although adverse-event data were “buried” in the supplemental materials of that study, the high cost of IVIg (approximately $12,500 per dose) means that the study has changed practice for the benefit of patients, providers, and health care systems.
COVID-19 and GBS triggers
Campylobacter jejuni infection still accounts for 30% to 40% of GBS cases, followed by other bacteria, including Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, and then by viruses, including cytomegalovirus and, rarely, human immunodeficiency virus. In recent years, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection – COVID-19 – and vaccines against the viral infection have captured headlines for purportedly being a cause of GBS.
The Zika virus epidemic of 2015-2016 has been linked to GBS-like illness. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic were associated with GBS – although, taken together, SARS and MERS-CoV produced fewer than 10 cases of GBS, Dr. Lunn noted. Nevertheless, heightened awareness of these viruses fueled hypervigilance regarding the prospect that COVID-19 could cause GBS. Following reports of a single such case in Wuhan and hundreds in Italy, worry over pandemic GBS grew worldwide.
Dr. Lunn and colleagues addressed the COVID-19–GBS question in a 2023 publication.9 “Because GBS is largely treated only with IVIg, and IVIg costs a lot of money, and the U.K. government insists on every dose of IVIg being logged in a government database, we were able to identify virtually every case of GBS,” he said.
GBS diagnoses were reliable, he added, because each case was confirmed by physicians outside the emergency department. Analysis revealed that, in 2020, U.K. GBS cases actually declined by around one-third. “And even when there was a second wave of COVID-19 at the end of 2020, partly caused by better counting,” Dr. Lunn said, “there was no further increase in GBS cases. We concluded that there was no link between GBS and COVID-19, as the cases simply didn’t appear.”
The foregoing findings have since been corroborated by studies in Singapore, the United States, and South America, he pointed out. Earlier case series suggesting a link between COVID-19 and GBS were selective, Dr. Lunn added, with numbers too small to support robust conclusions.
The lack of a causal link between COVID-19 and GBS suggested to Dr. Lunn that there was no reason COVID-19 vaccination should cause GBS. All COVID-19 vaccines were designed to provoke an immune response either (1) by producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the surface of virus (through a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector) or (2) through DNA or mRNA transcription, he explained. “The spike protein is only a small part of COVID-19.”
GBS: ‘Adverse event of interest’
A link between modern vaccines and GBS first appeared in the 1970s with the hastily developed swine flu vaccine. “In late 1976,” Dr. Lunn explained, “it was identified that patients who were given that vaccine seemed to be developing illnesses consistent with GBS.” By 1980, Dr. Lunn said, the risk level was determined to be only five or six cases for every 1 million doses of vaccine administered. “But the vaccine program was aborted, and swine flu never really happened.” Every year since, “there has been a surveillance program looking at the occurrence of an association of GBS with influenza vaccine.”
Minor fluctuations aside, he said, the overall incidence of GBS with influenza vaccination – 1 GBS case for every 1 million vaccine doses given – has remained consistent over several decades. “Nevertheless, GBS became an adverse event of special interest for any vaccination campaign.”
COVID-19 vaccination. Dr. Lunn and colleagues used the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) National Immunoglobulin Database, and other databases, to pinpoint the risk of GBS presented by the first dose of the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vaccine.10 As with U.K. GBS cases, every COVID-19 vaccination is linked to an NHS number. “We identified all the cases of GBS, found their NHS numbers, and went back and found the exact dates they’d been vaccinated, and with which vaccine.” Only the adenoviral-vector vaccine carried an excess risk of GBS – 5.8 cases for every 1 million doses, associated only with the first dose and peaking at approximately 25 days post vaccination – compared with other vaccines used in the United Kingdom.
Researchers looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, encompassing nearly 500 million COVID-19 vaccine doses given between December 2020 and January 2022. They found that patients who received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) had a rate of GBS (within 21 and 41 days post vaccination) that was 9 and 12 times higher, respectively, than corresponding rates for the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccines.11 Risk was distributed relatively evenly by gender and age. Also at day 21 and day 41, observed event ratios with the adenoviral-vector vaccine (use of which has been suspended in the United States) were 3.79 and 2.34, respectively. Observed-event ratios with the other vaccines mirrored expected background rates.
The VAERS analysis confirms earlier data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which showed that, among approximately 15 million U.S. vaccine doses given between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, the unadjusted GBS incidence rate for every 100,000 person-years for the adenoviral vaccine, 21 days post exposure, was 32.4, compared with 1.3 for the mRNA vaccine. The adjusted relative risk with the adenoviral vaccine in the first 3 weeks post vaccination, compared to the 3- to 6-week interval post vaccination, was 6.03.12 In addition, a head-to-head comparison of adenoviral versus mRNA vaccines at 21 days revealed an adjusted rate ratio of 20.56. Mechanistically, some experts theorize that antibodies induced by the Janssen vaccine might cross-react with glycoproteins on the myelin sheath of peripheral nerve axons to cause GBS, but this remains unproven.11
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus; the Janssen vaccine uses a human adenoviral carrier. “The only commonality between the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, and the only thing that’s different from the other vaccines, is the adenoviral vector packaging,” Dr. Lunn emphasized. “I believe it’s what generates GBS after COVID-19 vaccination. It has nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccination, the spike protein, the nucleic acid, the DNA, or anything else.”
The adenoviral vector probably also explains why GBS peaks during winter, said Dr. Lunn. “That’s when adenovirus is circulating.” When people contract the common cold, he explained, they don’t visit their family physician and request a swab to isolate the adenovirus. “By the time you get GBS, the adenovirus has been cleared. We’ve all got antibodies to adenovirus all over the place, anyway, because we get it so often.”
It would be difficult to prove conclusively that adenovirus belongs on the list of GBS causes, Dr. Lunn allowed. “But I have a strong suspicion that it does. COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination have given us some new avenues into identifying GBS causation potentially in the near future.” More research is needed in this area, he said.
Dr. Lunn has been a principal investigator for argenx (efgartigimod) and an adviser to AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). He has received travel grants from CSL Behring.
References
1. Ho TW et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome in northern China. Relationship to Campylobacter jejuni infection and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain. 1995;118(Pt 3):597-605. doi: 10.1093/brain/118.3.597.
2. Uncini A. A common mechanism and a new categorization for anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathies. Exp Neurol. 2012;235(2):513-6. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.03.023.
3. Uncini A and Kuwabara S. The electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: where do we stand? Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(12):2586-93. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025.
4. Delmont E et al. Autoantibodies to nodal isoforms of neurofascin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain. 2017;140(7):1851-8. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx124.
5. McGonigal R et al. Anti-GD1a antibodies activate complement and calpain to injure distal motor nodes of Ranvier in mice. Brain. 2010;133(Pt 7):1944-60. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq119.
6. Cunningham ME et al. Real time imaging of intra-axonal calcium flux in an explant mouse model of axonal Guillain-Barré syndrome. Exp Neurol. 2022 Sep;355:114127. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114127.
7. Misawa S et al; Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) Study Group. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.
8. Walgaard C et al; Dutch GBS Study Group. Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(4):275-83. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30494-4.
9. Keddie S et al. Epidemiological and cohort study finds no association between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Brain. 2021;144(2):682-93. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa433.
10. Keh RYS et al; BPNS/ABN COVID-19 Vaccine GBS Study Group. COVID-19 vaccination and Guillain-Barré syndrome: Analyses using the National Immunoglobulin Database. Brain. 2023;146(2):739-48. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac067.
11. Abara WE et al. Reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2253845. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53845.
12. Hanson KE et al. Incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e228879. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8879.
Recent insights into the pathophysiology of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) – which affects 1 or 2 persons for every 100,000 people annually, usually post infection – indicate that classic subtypes represent varying manifestations of a shared disease process. This knowledge is yielding new treatment strategies aimed at halting the illness in its tracks. Promising therapies include inhibitors of complement and, perhaps one day, the calcium-activated protease calpain.
Meanwhile, an association between COVID-19 and GBS has been debunked, whereas a small risk of GBS following adenovirus-vectored COVID vaccination is now accepted and quantified. Regardless of cause, the potential severity of GBS and variability in its presentation demand constant vigilance.
Shutting down the disease process
When patients present to an emergency department with sensory symptoms and increasing muscle weakness, “most of the damage has been or is being done,” said Michael P. Lunn, MBBS, MRCP, PhD, professor of clinical neurology, consultant neurologist, and clinical lead in neuroimmunology at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, who spoke at length about GBS with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. “The crucial reason that GBS treatment has not advanced significantly – and why we’re still slightly stuck where we are in terms of helping people get better more quickly – is that we need something that absolutely turns the disease off as patients come through the door.”
GBS is probably the best-understood autoimmune-mediated neurological disease, in some respects surpassing myasthenia gravis, Dr. Lunn said. “We know very frequently the organisms and stimuli that set off Guillain-Barré syndrome. We understand, to an extent, the immunology and how you break tolerance of the immune system so that an invading organism can provoke an immune response that damages peripheral nerves.”
Compared to what was known about GBS in decades past, neurologists now better understand how and where antibodies attack the nerve; how complement then damages the nodes of Ranvier and paranodes; and how an external attack results in sometimes irreparable internal nerve damage. “We’ve got a string, beginning to end, of understanding the disease,” declared Dr. Lunn.
Understanding of differences in the spectrum of pathology of GBS has led to additional diagnostic categories, said Dr. Lunn. Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, or typical GBS, represents the most common form in affluent Western nations. A motor variant was recognized in the 1980s; in the mid-1990s, Ho and colleagues described a cohort of patients in China who had acute motor axonal neuropathy and acute motor sensory axonal neuropathy1 – two forms that are particularly common throughout Asia and South America.
Shared mechanism
Based on the findings of electrophysiologic studies, Dr. Lunn said, experts traditionally believed that GBS attacked either axons themselves or their myelin sheaths. “That’s where the anti-ganglioside antibodies come in, providing targeting to nerve structures.” The dichotomous classification system, he added, was partially correct.
Then, through the 2010s and 2020s, neurophysiologist Antonio Uncini, MD, recognized, based partly on histologic studies by Ho and colleagues, that the myelin and axonal subtypes are both likely to stem from the same mechanism.2 When antibodies and complement damage the node of Ranvier, Dr. Lunn said, “the myelin gets stripped off and the conduction becomes slow. But then the myelin can return, and patients get better.” But if damage is severe, it severs the axon, resulting in unrecoverable motor axonal neuropathy. “It’s basically all the same spectrum of disease,” Dr. Lunn said. “Anti-ganglioside antibodies may account for different GBS ‘flavors,’ but the immunological attack all occurs at the node of Ranvier in one way or another.”
The foregoing insight has focused development efforts on the shared seminal pathway of all GBS subtypes and given rise to the concept of nodo-paranodopathy, which incorporates damage at either the node of Ranvier or nearby paranodes.3
Simultaneously, Spanish and French researchers began elucidating new antibodies responsible for neuropathology at the node of Ranvier.4 Anti-ganglioside antibodies have long been loosely associated with acute motor axonal neuropathy and poor outcomes, although, Dr. Lunn said, they fail to tell the full story. Anti-GQ1b antibodies are associated with the Miller-Fisher syndrome subtype, well recognized for its medical features: double vision, loss of tendon reflexes, and arm and leg weakness.
However, Dr. Lunn said, most GBS cases lack anti-ganglioside antibodies. In some GBS cases, antibodies attack neurofascin, contactins, and gliomedin, which are mainly adhesion proteins at nodes of Ranvier.
“Therefore,” Dr. Lunn said, “there must be an antibody-mediated attack of the node of Ranvier or the paranode. That’s an important series of discoveries, primarily because it helps us understand the immunological attack at the node of Ranvier, which goes along with what Dr. Uncini was saying. But it also divides off a group of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathies (CIDP) that present acutely and look initially, for all purposes, like GBS.”
Recognizing acute CIDP (A-CIDP) is critically important for clinicians, Dr. Lunn stressed, because it requires treatment with rituximab (the most commonly used option), steroids, or plasma exchange.
Key clues that distinguish A-CIDP from GBS include:
• A high level of cerebrospinal fluid protein.
• Very slow nerve conduction.
• Early muscle wasting (rare in GBS).
Recognizing CIDP and A-CIDP is crucial, said Dr. Lunn, because it begins to bring all the pathology back together to make sense of GBS. Neurologists have known for decades that, if one damages a nerve with antibodies, then binds complement to those antibodies, the complement punches holes in the affected cells, resulting in death. “But it wasn’t quite clear how those cells might die,” Dr. Lunn said.
After complement-induced injury, calcium-activated calpain permanently damages the entire internal axonal structure.5 Perhaps more important, a 2022 mouse study showed that complement-mediated damage could be directed to myelin or axons using the genetically programmed presence or absence of gangliosides to understand subsequent calpain-induced destruction in either axons or myelin.6
Some of the engineered mouse cells included ganglioside; others did not. “So you can have anti-ganglioside antibodies directed at one cell type or the other, which would, or would not, have calpain within them,” Dr. Lunn said. Investigators also showed that a calpain inhibitor (AK295) or overproduction of an endogenous inhibitor, calpastatin, prevented damage to both cell types.6All existing calpain inhibitors are unsuitable for clinical use because they are highly toxic. “But if you could inhibit calpain and stop it from being activated by calcium,” Dr. Lunn explained, “you would have a mechanism for stopping cell degradation during GBS. That would be an important future target for pharmacotherapy. That whole story – from the beginning to the end of GBS – has opened up options for treatment.”
Because complement bound to antibodies, set up by infection, plays a pivotal role, complement inhibitors have become an exciting area of research over the past decade. The 36-patient Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) trial showed that, after 6 months, significantly more eculizumab-treated patients could run, compared with placebo-treated patients.7
“No other trials of complement inhibitors have yet been completed,” Dr. Lunn said. “But several different complement inhibitors work at different places, in a very complicated immune process. One of the complement inhibitors will become transformative in treating GBS – preventing disability and improving recovery – in the not-very-distant future.”
Additional investigational treatments that have demonstrated early promise in eliminating problem antibodies faster include imlifidase (Idefirix [Hansa Biopharma]), which destroys antibodies, and Fc receptor inhibitors such as efgartigimod alfa-fcab (Vyvgart [argenx]), which push antibodies into the natural catabolic pathway.
“We’ve been stuck with plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for three or four decades,” Dr. Lunn said. “We now have a series of strategies by which we can completely turn off complement and resulting nerve damage. If we can find a calpain inhibitor that turns off the end of that pathway, we will make dramatic improvements. Our understanding of the immunopathology has changed enormously and influences pharmacotherapy going forward.”
Recap of diagnosis and treatment
For decades, the diagnosis of GBS has relied on the presence of symptoms, including progressive weakness and loss of reflexes and sensations. Nerve-conduction studies and cerebrospinal fluid evaluation can help confirm the diagnosis.
IVIg shortens recovery, said Dr. Lunn, although nothing cures GBS. “And that’s a common problem: Clinicians think that they’re going to give somebody IVIg, and the patient’s going to get better immediately.” When that doesn’t happen, he said, physicians are tempted to give a second immunoglobulin dose.
However, a study published in 2021 shows that a second IVIg dose does not result in faster or better improvement – only in a significant risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other thrombotic events 3 weeks later.8 Dr. Lunn noted that, although adverse-event data were “buried” in the supplemental materials of that study, the high cost of IVIg (approximately $12,500 per dose) means that the study has changed practice for the benefit of patients, providers, and health care systems.
COVID-19 and GBS triggers
Campylobacter jejuni infection still accounts for 30% to 40% of GBS cases, followed by other bacteria, including Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, and then by viruses, including cytomegalovirus and, rarely, human immunodeficiency virus. In recent years, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection – COVID-19 – and vaccines against the viral infection have captured headlines for purportedly being a cause of GBS.
The Zika virus epidemic of 2015-2016 has been linked to GBS-like illness. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic were associated with GBS – although, taken together, SARS and MERS-CoV produced fewer than 10 cases of GBS, Dr. Lunn noted. Nevertheless, heightened awareness of these viruses fueled hypervigilance regarding the prospect that COVID-19 could cause GBS. Following reports of a single such case in Wuhan and hundreds in Italy, worry over pandemic GBS grew worldwide.
Dr. Lunn and colleagues addressed the COVID-19–GBS question in a 2023 publication.9 “Because GBS is largely treated only with IVIg, and IVIg costs a lot of money, and the U.K. government insists on every dose of IVIg being logged in a government database, we were able to identify virtually every case of GBS,” he said.
GBS diagnoses were reliable, he added, because each case was confirmed by physicians outside the emergency department. Analysis revealed that, in 2020, U.K. GBS cases actually declined by around one-third. “And even when there was a second wave of COVID-19 at the end of 2020, partly caused by better counting,” Dr. Lunn said, “there was no further increase in GBS cases. We concluded that there was no link between GBS and COVID-19, as the cases simply didn’t appear.”
The foregoing findings have since been corroborated by studies in Singapore, the United States, and South America, he pointed out. Earlier case series suggesting a link between COVID-19 and GBS were selective, Dr. Lunn added, with numbers too small to support robust conclusions.
The lack of a causal link between COVID-19 and GBS suggested to Dr. Lunn that there was no reason COVID-19 vaccination should cause GBS. All COVID-19 vaccines were designed to provoke an immune response either (1) by producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the surface of virus (through a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector) or (2) through DNA or mRNA transcription, he explained. “The spike protein is only a small part of COVID-19.”
GBS: ‘Adverse event of interest’
A link between modern vaccines and GBS first appeared in the 1970s with the hastily developed swine flu vaccine. “In late 1976,” Dr. Lunn explained, “it was identified that patients who were given that vaccine seemed to be developing illnesses consistent with GBS.” By 1980, Dr. Lunn said, the risk level was determined to be only five or six cases for every 1 million doses of vaccine administered. “But the vaccine program was aborted, and swine flu never really happened.” Every year since, “there has been a surveillance program looking at the occurrence of an association of GBS with influenza vaccine.”
Minor fluctuations aside, he said, the overall incidence of GBS with influenza vaccination – 1 GBS case for every 1 million vaccine doses given – has remained consistent over several decades. “Nevertheless, GBS became an adverse event of special interest for any vaccination campaign.”
COVID-19 vaccination. Dr. Lunn and colleagues used the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) National Immunoglobulin Database, and other databases, to pinpoint the risk of GBS presented by the first dose of the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vaccine.10 As with U.K. GBS cases, every COVID-19 vaccination is linked to an NHS number. “We identified all the cases of GBS, found their NHS numbers, and went back and found the exact dates they’d been vaccinated, and with which vaccine.” Only the adenoviral-vector vaccine carried an excess risk of GBS – 5.8 cases for every 1 million doses, associated only with the first dose and peaking at approximately 25 days post vaccination – compared with other vaccines used in the United Kingdom.
Researchers looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, encompassing nearly 500 million COVID-19 vaccine doses given between December 2020 and January 2022. They found that patients who received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) had a rate of GBS (within 21 and 41 days post vaccination) that was 9 and 12 times higher, respectively, than corresponding rates for the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccines.11 Risk was distributed relatively evenly by gender and age. Also at day 21 and day 41, observed event ratios with the adenoviral-vector vaccine (use of which has been suspended in the United States) were 3.79 and 2.34, respectively. Observed-event ratios with the other vaccines mirrored expected background rates.
The VAERS analysis confirms earlier data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which showed that, among approximately 15 million U.S. vaccine doses given between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, the unadjusted GBS incidence rate for every 100,000 person-years for the adenoviral vaccine, 21 days post exposure, was 32.4, compared with 1.3 for the mRNA vaccine. The adjusted relative risk with the adenoviral vaccine in the first 3 weeks post vaccination, compared to the 3- to 6-week interval post vaccination, was 6.03.12 In addition, a head-to-head comparison of adenoviral versus mRNA vaccines at 21 days revealed an adjusted rate ratio of 20.56. Mechanistically, some experts theorize that antibodies induced by the Janssen vaccine might cross-react with glycoproteins on the myelin sheath of peripheral nerve axons to cause GBS, but this remains unproven.11
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus; the Janssen vaccine uses a human adenoviral carrier. “The only commonality between the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, and the only thing that’s different from the other vaccines, is the adenoviral vector packaging,” Dr. Lunn emphasized. “I believe it’s what generates GBS after COVID-19 vaccination. It has nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccination, the spike protein, the nucleic acid, the DNA, or anything else.”
The adenoviral vector probably also explains why GBS peaks during winter, said Dr. Lunn. “That’s when adenovirus is circulating.” When people contract the common cold, he explained, they don’t visit their family physician and request a swab to isolate the adenovirus. “By the time you get GBS, the adenovirus has been cleared. We’ve all got antibodies to adenovirus all over the place, anyway, because we get it so often.”
It would be difficult to prove conclusively that adenovirus belongs on the list of GBS causes, Dr. Lunn allowed. “But I have a strong suspicion that it does. COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination have given us some new avenues into identifying GBS causation potentially in the near future.” More research is needed in this area, he said.
Dr. Lunn has been a principal investigator for argenx (efgartigimod) and an adviser to AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). He has received travel grants from CSL Behring.
References
1. Ho TW et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome in northern China. Relationship to Campylobacter jejuni infection and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain. 1995;118(Pt 3):597-605. doi: 10.1093/brain/118.3.597.
2. Uncini A. A common mechanism and a new categorization for anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathies. Exp Neurol. 2012;235(2):513-6. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.03.023.
3. Uncini A and Kuwabara S. The electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: where do we stand? Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(12):2586-93. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025.
4. Delmont E et al. Autoantibodies to nodal isoforms of neurofascin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain. 2017;140(7):1851-8. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx124.
5. McGonigal R et al. Anti-GD1a antibodies activate complement and calpain to injure distal motor nodes of Ranvier in mice. Brain. 2010;133(Pt 7):1944-60. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq119.
6. Cunningham ME et al. Real time imaging of intra-axonal calcium flux in an explant mouse model of axonal Guillain-Barré syndrome. Exp Neurol. 2022 Sep;355:114127. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114127.
7. Misawa S et al; Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) Study Group. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.
8. Walgaard C et al; Dutch GBS Study Group. Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(4):275-83. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30494-4.
9. Keddie S et al. Epidemiological and cohort study finds no association between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Brain. 2021;144(2):682-93. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa433.
10. Keh RYS et al; BPNS/ABN COVID-19 Vaccine GBS Study Group. COVID-19 vaccination and Guillain-Barré syndrome: Analyses using the National Immunoglobulin Database. Brain. 2023;146(2):739-48. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac067.
11. Abara WE et al. Reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2253845. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53845.
12. Hanson KE et al. Incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e228879. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8879.
Recent insights into the pathophysiology of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) – which affects 1 or 2 persons for every 100,000 people annually, usually post infection – indicate that classic subtypes represent varying manifestations of a shared disease process. This knowledge is yielding new treatment strategies aimed at halting the illness in its tracks. Promising therapies include inhibitors of complement and, perhaps one day, the calcium-activated protease calpain.
Meanwhile, an association between COVID-19 and GBS has been debunked, whereas a small risk of GBS following adenovirus-vectored COVID vaccination is now accepted and quantified. Regardless of cause, the potential severity of GBS and variability in its presentation demand constant vigilance.
Shutting down the disease process
When patients present to an emergency department with sensory symptoms and increasing muscle weakness, “most of the damage has been or is being done,” said Michael P. Lunn, MBBS, MRCP, PhD, professor of clinical neurology, consultant neurologist, and clinical lead in neuroimmunology at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, who spoke at length about GBS with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. “The crucial reason that GBS treatment has not advanced significantly – and why we’re still slightly stuck where we are in terms of helping people get better more quickly – is that we need something that absolutely turns the disease off as patients come through the door.”
GBS is probably the best-understood autoimmune-mediated neurological disease, in some respects surpassing myasthenia gravis, Dr. Lunn said. “We know very frequently the organisms and stimuli that set off Guillain-Barré syndrome. We understand, to an extent, the immunology and how you break tolerance of the immune system so that an invading organism can provoke an immune response that damages peripheral nerves.”
Compared to what was known about GBS in decades past, neurologists now better understand how and where antibodies attack the nerve; how complement then damages the nodes of Ranvier and paranodes; and how an external attack results in sometimes irreparable internal nerve damage. “We’ve got a string, beginning to end, of understanding the disease,” declared Dr. Lunn.
Understanding of differences in the spectrum of pathology of GBS has led to additional diagnostic categories, said Dr. Lunn. Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, or typical GBS, represents the most common form in affluent Western nations. A motor variant was recognized in the 1980s; in the mid-1990s, Ho and colleagues described a cohort of patients in China who had acute motor axonal neuropathy and acute motor sensory axonal neuropathy1 – two forms that are particularly common throughout Asia and South America.
Shared mechanism
Based on the findings of electrophysiologic studies, Dr. Lunn said, experts traditionally believed that GBS attacked either axons themselves or their myelin sheaths. “That’s where the anti-ganglioside antibodies come in, providing targeting to nerve structures.” The dichotomous classification system, he added, was partially correct.
Then, through the 2010s and 2020s, neurophysiologist Antonio Uncini, MD, recognized, based partly on histologic studies by Ho and colleagues, that the myelin and axonal subtypes are both likely to stem from the same mechanism.2 When antibodies and complement damage the node of Ranvier, Dr. Lunn said, “the myelin gets stripped off and the conduction becomes slow. But then the myelin can return, and patients get better.” But if damage is severe, it severs the axon, resulting in unrecoverable motor axonal neuropathy. “It’s basically all the same spectrum of disease,” Dr. Lunn said. “Anti-ganglioside antibodies may account for different GBS ‘flavors,’ but the immunological attack all occurs at the node of Ranvier in one way or another.”
The foregoing insight has focused development efforts on the shared seminal pathway of all GBS subtypes and given rise to the concept of nodo-paranodopathy, which incorporates damage at either the node of Ranvier or nearby paranodes.3
Simultaneously, Spanish and French researchers began elucidating new antibodies responsible for neuropathology at the node of Ranvier.4 Anti-ganglioside antibodies have long been loosely associated with acute motor axonal neuropathy and poor outcomes, although, Dr. Lunn said, they fail to tell the full story. Anti-GQ1b antibodies are associated with the Miller-Fisher syndrome subtype, well recognized for its medical features: double vision, loss of tendon reflexes, and arm and leg weakness.
However, Dr. Lunn said, most GBS cases lack anti-ganglioside antibodies. In some GBS cases, antibodies attack neurofascin, contactins, and gliomedin, which are mainly adhesion proteins at nodes of Ranvier.
“Therefore,” Dr. Lunn said, “there must be an antibody-mediated attack of the node of Ranvier or the paranode. That’s an important series of discoveries, primarily because it helps us understand the immunological attack at the node of Ranvier, which goes along with what Dr. Uncini was saying. But it also divides off a group of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathies (CIDP) that present acutely and look initially, for all purposes, like GBS.”
Recognizing acute CIDP (A-CIDP) is critically important for clinicians, Dr. Lunn stressed, because it requires treatment with rituximab (the most commonly used option), steroids, or plasma exchange.
Key clues that distinguish A-CIDP from GBS include:
• A high level of cerebrospinal fluid protein.
• Very slow nerve conduction.
• Early muscle wasting (rare in GBS).
Recognizing CIDP and A-CIDP is crucial, said Dr. Lunn, because it begins to bring all the pathology back together to make sense of GBS. Neurologists have known for decades that, if one damages a nerve with antibodies, then binds complement to those antibodies, the complement punches holes in the affected cells, resulting in death. “But it wasn’t quite clear how those cells might die,” Dr. Lunn said.
After complement-induced injury, calcium-activated calpain permanently damages the entire internal axonal structure.5 Perhaps more important, a 2022 mouse study showed that complement-mediated damage could be directed to myelin or axons using the genetically programmed presence or absence of gangliosides to understand subsequent calpain-induced destruction in either axons or myelin.6
Some of the engineered mouse cells included ganglioside; others did not. “So you can have anti-ganglioside antibodies directed at one cell type or the other, which would, or would not, have calpain within them,” Dr. Lunn said. Investigators also showed that a calpain inhibitor (AK295) or overproduction of an endogenous inhibitor, calpastatin, prevented damage to both cell types.6All existing calpain inhibitors are unsuitable for clinical use because they are highly toxic. “But if you could inhibit calpain and stop it from being activated by calcium,” Dr. Lunn explained, “you would have a mechanism for stopping cell degradation during GBS. That would be an important future target for pharmacotherapy. That whole story – from the beginning to the end of GBS – has opened up options for treatment.”
Because complement bound to antibodies, set up by infection, plays a pivotal role, complement inhibitors have become an exciting area of research over the past decade. The 36-patient Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) trial showed that, after 6 months, significantly more eculizumab-treated patients could run, compared with placebo-treated patients.7
“No other trials of complement inhibitors have yet been completed,” Dr. Lunn said. “But several different complement inhibitors work at different places, in a very complicated immune process. One of the complement inhibitors will become transformative in treating GBS – preventing disability and improving recovery – in the not-very-distant future.”
Additional investigational treatments that have demonstrated early promise in eliminating problem antibodies faster include imlifidase (Idefirix [Hansa Biopharma]), which destroys antibodies, and Fc receptor inhibitors such as efgartigimod alfa-fcab (Vyvgart [argenx]), which push antibodies into the natural catabolic pathway.
“We’ve been stuck with plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for three or four decades,” Dr. Lunn said. “We now have a series of strategies by which we can completely turn off complement and resulting nerve damage. If we can find a calpain inhibitor that turns off the end of that pathway, we will make dramatic improvements. Our understanding of the immunopathology has changed enormously and influences pharmacotherapy going forward.”
Recap of diagnosis and treatment
For decades, the diagnosis of GBS has relied on the presence of symptoms, including progressive weakness and loss of reflexes and sensations. Nerve-conduction studies and cerebrospinal fluid evaluation can help confirm the diagnosis.
IVIg shortens recovery, said Dr. Lunn, although nothing cures GBS. “And that’s a common problem: Clinicians think that they’re going to give somebody IVIg, and the patient’s going to get better immediately.” When that doesn’t happen, he said, physicians are tempted to give a second immunoglobulin dose.
However, a study published in 2021 shows that a second IVIg dose does not result in faster or better improvement – only in a significant risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other thrombotic events 3 weeks later.8 Dr. Lunn noted that, although adverse-event data were “buried” in the supplemental materials of that study, the high cost of IVIg (approximately $12,500 per dose) means that the study has changed practice for the benefit of patients, providers, and health care systems.
COVID-19 and GBS triggers
Campylobacter jejuni infection still accounts for 30% to 40% of GBS cases, followed by other bacteria, including Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, and then by viruses, including cytomegalovirus and, rarely, human immunodeficiency virus. In recent years, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection – COVID-19 – and vaccines against the viral infection have captured headlines for purportedly being a cause of GBS.
The Zika virus epidemic of 2015-2016 has been linked to GBS-like illness. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic were associated with GBS – although, taken together, SARS and MERS-CoV produced fewer than 10 cases of GBS, Dr. Lunn noted. Nevertheless, heightened awareness of these viruses fueled hypervigilance regarding the prospect that COVID-19 could cause GBS. Following reports of a single such case in Wuhan and hundreds in Italy, worry over pandemic GBS grew worldwide.
Dr. Lunn and colleagues addressed the COVID-19–GBS question in a 2023 publication.9 “Because GBS is largely treated only with IVIg, and IVIg costs a lot of money, and the U.K. government insists on every dose of IVIg being logged in a government database, we were able to identify virtually every case of GBS,” he said.
GBS diagnoses were reliable, he added, because each case was confirmed by physicians outside the emergency department. Analysis revealed that, in 2020, U.K. GBS cases actually declined by around one-third. “And even when there was a second wave of COVID-19 at the end of 2020, partly caused by better counting,” Dr. Lunn said, “there was no further increase in GBS cases. We concluded that there was no link between GBS and COVID-19, as the cases simply didn’t appear.”
The foregoing findings have since been corroborated by studies in Singapore, the United States, and South America, he pointed out. Earlier case series suggesting a link between COVID-19 and GBS were selective, Dr. Lunn added, with numbers too small to support robust conclusions.
The lack of a causal link between COVID-19 and GBS suggested to Dr. Lunn that there was no reason COVID-19 vaccination should cause GBS. All COVID-19 vaccines were designed to provoke an immune response either (1) by producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the surface of virus (through a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector) or (2) through DNA or mRNA transcription, he explained. “The spike protein is only a small part of COVID-19.”
GBS: ‘Adverse event of interest’
A link between modern vaccines and GBS first appeared in the 1970s with the hastily developed swine flu vaccine. “In late 1976,” Dr. Lunn explained, “it was identified that patients who were given that vaccine seemed to be developing illnesses consistent with GBS.” By 1980, Dr. Lunn said, the risk level was determined to be only five or six cases for every 1 million doses of vaccine administered. “But the vaccine program was aborted, and swine flu never really happened.” Every year since, “there has been a surveillance program looking at the occurrence of an association of GBS with influenza vaccine.”
Minor fluctuations aside, he said, the overall incidence of GBS with influenza vaccination – 1 GBS case for every 1 million vaccine doses given – has remained consistent over several decades. “Nevertheless, GBS became an adverse event of special interest for any vaccination campaign.”
COVID-19 vaccination. Dr. Lunn and colleagues used the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) National Immunoglobulin Database, and other databases, to pinpoint the risk of GBS presented by the first dose of the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vaccine.10 As with U.K. GBS cases, every COVID-19 vaccination is linked to an NHS number. “We identified all the cases of GBS, found their NHS numbers, and went back and found the exact dates they’d been vaccinated, and with which vaccine.” Only the adenoviral-vector vaccine carried an excess risk of GBS – 5.8 cases for every 1 million doses, associated only with the first dose and peaking at approximately 25 days post vaccination – compared with other vaccines used in the United Kingdom.
Researchers looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, encompassing nearly 500 million COVID-19 vaccine doses given between December 2020 and January 2022. They found that patients who received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) had a rate of GBS (within 21 and 41 days post vaccination) that was 9 and 12 times higher, respectively, than corresponding rates for the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccines.11 Risk was distributed relatively evenly by gender and age. Also at day 21 and day 41, observed event ratios with the adenoviral-vector vaccine (use of which has been suspended in the United States) were 3.79 and 2.34, respectively. Observed-event ratios with the other vaccines mirrored expected background rates.
The VAERS analysis confirms earlier data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which showed that, among approximately 15 million U.S. vaccine doses given between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, the unadjusted GBS incidence rate for every 100,000 person-years for the adenoviral vaccine, 21 days post exposure, was 32.4, compared with 1.3 for the mRNA vaccine. The adjusted relative risk with the adenoviral vaccine in the first 3 weeks post vaccination, compared to the 3- to 6-week interval post vaccination, was 6.03.12 In addition, a head-to-head comparison of adenoviral versus mRNA vaccines at 21 days revealed an adjusted rate ratio of 20.56. Mechanistically, some experts theorize that antibodies induced by the Janssen vaccine might cross-react with glycoproteins on the myelin sheath of peripheral nerve axons to cause GBS, but this remains unproven.11
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus; the Janssen vaccine uses a human adenoviral carrier. “The only commonality between the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, and the only thing that’s different from the other vaccines, is the adenoviral vector packaging,” Dr. Lunn emphasized. “I believe it’s what generates GBS after COVID-19 vaccination. It has nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccination, the spike protein, the nucleic acid, the DNA, or anything else.”
The adenoviral vector probably also explains why GBS peaks during winter, said Dr. Lunn. “That’s when adenovirus is circulating.” When people contract the common cold, he explained, they don’t visit their family physician and request a swab to isolate the adenovirus. “By the time you get GBS, the adenovirus has been cleared. We’ve all got antibodies to adenovirus all over the place, anyway, because we get it so often.”
It would be difficult to prove conclusively that adenovirus belongs on the list of GBS causes, Dr. Lunn allowed. “But I have a strong suspicion that it does. COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination have given us some new avenues into identifying GBS causation potentially in the near future.” More research is needed in this area, he said.
Dr. Lunn has been a principal investigator for argenx (efgartigimod) and an adviser to AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). He has received travel grants from CSL Behring.
References
1. Ho TW et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome in northern China. Relationship to Campylobacter jejuni infection and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain. 1995;118(Pt 3):597-605. doi: 10.1093/brain/118.3.597.
2. Uncini A. A common mechanism and a new categorization for anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathies. Exp Neurol. 2012;235(2):513-6. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.03.023.
3. Uncini A and Kuwabara S. The electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: where do we stand? Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(12):2586-93. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025.
4. Delmont E et al. Autoantibodies to nodal isoforms of neurofascin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain. 2017;140(7):1851-8. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx124.
5. McGonigal R et al. Anti-GD1a antibodies activate complement and calpain to injure distal motor nodes of Ranvier in mice. Brain. 2010;133(Pt 7):1944-60. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq119.
6. Cunningham ME et al. Real time imaging of intra-axonal calcium flux in an explant mouse model of axonal Guillain-Barré syndrome. Exp Neurol. 2022 Sep;355:114127. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114127.
7. Misawa S et al; Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) Study Group. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.
8. Walgaard C et al; Dutch GBS Study Group. Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(4):275-83. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30494-4.
9. Keddie S et al. Epidemiological and cohort study finds no association between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Brain. 2021;144(2):682-93. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa433.
10. Keh RYS et al; BPNS/ABN COVID-19 Vaccine GBS Study Group. COVID-19 vaccination and Guillain-Barré syndrome: Analyses using the National Immunoglobulin Database. Brain. 2023;146(2):739-48. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac067.
11. Abara WE et al. Reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2253845. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53845.
12. Hanson KE et al. Incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e228879. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8879.