Neurology Reviews

Individuals with anxiety have at least a twofold higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease than those without anxiety, new research suggested.

Investigators drew on 10-year data from primary care registry to compare almost 110,000 patients who developed anxiety after the age of 50 years with close to 900,000 matched controls without anxiety.

After adjusting for a variety of sociodemographic, lifestyle, psychiatric, and neurological factors, they found that the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with controls.

“Anxiety is known to be a feature of the early stages of Parkinson’s disease, but prior to our study, the prospective risk of Parkinson’s in those over the age of 50 with new-onset anxiety was unknown,” colead author Juan Bazo Alvarez, a senior research fellow in the Division of Epidemiology and Health at University College London, London, England, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

The presence of anxiety is increased in prodromal Parkinson’s disease, but the prospective risk for Parkinson’s disease in those aged 50 years or older with new-onset anxiety was largely unknown.

Investigators analyzed data from a large UK primary care dataset that includes all people aged between 50 and 99 years who were registered with a participating practice from Jan. 1, 2008, to Dec. 31, 2018.

They identified 109,435 people (35% men) with more than one anxiety record in the database but no previous record of anxiety for 1 year or more and 878,256 people (37% men) with no history of anxiety (control group).

Features of Parkinson’s disease such as sleep problems, depression, tremor, and impaired balance were then tracked from the point of the anxiety diagnosis until 1 year before the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis.

Among those with anxiety, 331 developed Parkinson’s disease during the follow-up period, with a median time to diagnosis of 4.9 years after the first recorded episode of anxiety.

The incidence of Parkinson’s disease was 1.2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 0.92-1.13) in those with anxiety versus 0.49 (95% CI, 0.47-0.52) in those without anxiety.

After adjustment for age, sex, social deprivation, lifestyle factors, severe mental illness, head trauma, and dementia, the risk for Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with the non-anxiety group (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.9-2.4).

Individuals without anxiety also developed Parkinson’s disease later than those with anxiety.

The researchers identified specific symptoms that were associated with later development of Parkinson’s disease in those with anxiety, including depression, sleep disturbance, fatigue, and cognitive impairment, among other symptoms.

“The results suggest that there is a strong association between anxiety and diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in patients aged over 50 years who present with a new diagnosis of anxiety,” the authors wrote. “This provides evidence for anxiety as a prodromal presentation of Parkinson’s disease.”

Future research “should explore anxiety in relation to other prodromal symptoms and how this symptom complex is associated with the incidence of Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers wrote. Doing so “may lead to earlier diagnosis and better management of Parkinson’s disease.”

This study was funded by the European Union. Specific authors received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Alzheimer’s Society Clinical Training Fellowship program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with anxiety have at least a twofold higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease than those without anxiety, new research suggested.

Investigators drew on 10-year data from primary care registry to compare almost 110,000 patients who developed anxiety after the age of 50 years with close to 900,000 matched controls without anxiety.

After adjusting for a variety of sociodemographic, lifestyle, psychiatric, and neurological factors, they found that the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with controls.

“Anxiety is known to be a feature of the early stages of Parkinson’s disease, but prior to our study, the prospective risk of Parkinson’s in those over the age of 50 with new-onset anxiety was unknown,” colead author Juan Bazo Alvarez, a senior research fellow in the Division of Epidemiology and Health at University College London, London, England, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

The presence of anxiety is increased in prodromal Parkinson’s disease, but the prospective risk for Parkinson’s disease in those aged 50 years or older with new-onset anxiety was largely unknown.

Investigators analyzed data from a large UK primary care dataset that includes all people aged between 50 and 99 years who were registered with a participating practice from Jan. 1, 2008, to Dec. 31, 2018.

They identified 109,435 people (35% men) with more than one anxiety record in the database but no previous record of anxiety for 1 year or more and 878,256 people (37% men) with no history of anxiety (control group).

Features of Parkinson’s disease such as sleep problems, depression, tremor, and impaired balance were then tracked from the point of the anxiety diagnosis until 1 year before the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis.

Among those with anxiety, 331 developed Parkinson’s disease during the follow-up period, with a median time to diagnosis of 4.9 years after the first recorded episode of anxiety.

The incidence of Parkinson’s disease was 1.2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 0.92-1.13) in those with anxiety versus 0.49 (95% CI, 0.47-0.52) in those without anxiety.

After adjustment for age, sex, social deprivation, lifestyle factors, severe mental illness, head trauma, and dementia, the risk for Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with the non-anxiety group (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.9-2.4).

Individuals without anxiety also developed Parkinson’s disease later than those with anxiety.

The researchers identified specific symptoms that were associated with later development of Parkinson’s disease in those with anxiety, including depression, sleep disturbance, fatigue, and cognitive impairment, among other symptoms.

“The results suggest that there is a strong association between anxiety and diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in patients aged over 50 years who present with a new diagnosis of anxiety,” the authors wrote. “This provides evidence for anxiety as a prodromal presentation of Parkinson’s disease.”

Future research “should explore anxiety in relation to other prodromal symptoms and how this symptom complex is associated with the incidence of Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers wrote. Doing so “may lead to earlier diagnosis and better management of Parkinson’s disease.”

This study was funded by the European Union. Specific authors received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Alzheimer’s Society Clinical Training Fellowship program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with anxiety have at least a twofold higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease than those without anxiety, new research suggested.

Investigators drew on 10-year data from primary care registry to compare almost 110,000 patients who developed anxiety after the age of 50 years with close to 900,000 matched controls without anxiety.

After adjusting for a variety of sociodemographic, lifestyle, psychiatric, and neurological factors, they found that the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with controls.

“Anxiety is known to be a feature of the early stages of Parkinson’s disease, but prior to our study, the prospective risk of Parkinson’s in those over the age of 50 with new-onset anxiety was unknown,” colead author Juan Bazo Alvarez, a senior research fellow in the Division of Epidemiology and Health at University College London, London, England, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

The presence of anxiety is increased in prodromal Parkinson’s disease, but the prospective risk for Parkinson’s disease in those aged 50 years or older with new-onset anxiety was largely unknown.

Investigators analyzed data from a large UK primary care dataset that includes all people aged between 50 and 99 years who were registered with a participating practice from Jan. 1, 2008, to Dec. 31, 2018.

They identified 109,435 people (35% men) with more than one anxiety record in the database but no previous record of anxiety for 1 year or more and 878,256 people (37% men) with no history of anxiety (control group).

Features of Parkinson’s disease such as sleep problems, depression, tremor, and impaired balance were then tracked from the point of the anxiety diagnosis until 1 year before the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis.

Among those with anxiety, 331 developed Parkinson’s disease during the follow-up period, with a median time to diagnosis of 4.9 years after the first recorded episode of anxiety.

The incidence of Parkinson’s disease was 1.2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 0.92-1.13) in those with anxiety versus 0.49 (95% CI, 0.47-0.52) in those without anxiety.

After adjustment for age, sex, social deprivation, lifestyle factors, severe mental illness, head trauma, and dementia, the risk for Parkinson’s disease was double in those with anxiety, compared with the non-anxiety group (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.9-2.4).

Individuals without anxiety also developed Parkinson’s disease later than those with anxiety.

The researchers identified specific symptoms that were associated with later development of Parkinson’s disease in those with anxiety, including depression, sleep disturbance, fatigue, and cognitive impairment, among other symptoms.

“The results suggest that there is a strong association between anxiety and diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in patients aged over 50 years who present with a new diagnosis of anxiety,” the authors wrote. “This provides evidence for anxiety as a prodromal presentation of Parkinson’s disease.”

Future research “should explore anxiety in relation to other prodromal symptoms and how this symptom complex is associated with the incidence of Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers wrote. Doing so “may lead to earlier diagnosis and better management of Parkinson’s disease.”

This study was funded by the European Union. Specific authors received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Alzheimer’s Society Clinical Training Fellowship program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research supports current guidelines cautioning against long-term use of benzodiazepines.

The study of more than 5000 older adults found that benzodiazepine use was associated with an accelerated reduction in the volume of the hippocampus and amygdala — brain regions involved in memory and mood regulation. However, benzodiazepine use overall was not associated with an increased risk for dementia.

The findings suggest that benzodiazepine use “may have subtle, long-term impact on brain health,” lead investigator Frank Wolters, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in BMC Medicine.
 

Conflicting Evidence 

Benzodiazepines are commonly prescribed in older adults for anxiety and sleep disorders. Though the short-term cognitive side effects are well documented, the long-term impact on neurodegeneration and dementia risk remains unclear. Some studies have linked benzodiazepine use to an increased risk for dementia, whereas others have not.

Dr. Wolters and colleagues assessed the effect of benzodiazepine use on long-term dementia risk and on imaging markers of neurodegeneration in 5443 cognitively healthy adults (mean age, 71 years; 57% women) from the population-based Rotterdam Study. 

Benzodiazepine use between 1991 and 2008 was determined using pharmacy dispensing records, and dementia incidence was determined from medical records. 

Half of the participants had used benzodiazepines at any time in the 15 years before baseline (2005-2008); 47% used anxiolytics, 20% used sedative-hypnotics, 34% used both, and 13% were still using the drugs at the baseline assessment. 

During an average follow-up of 11 years, 13% of participants developed dementia. 

Overall, use of benzodiazepines was not associated with dementia risk, compared with never-use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06), irrespective of cumulative dose. 

The risk for dementia was somewhat higher with any use of anxiolytics than with sedative-hypnotics (HR, 1.17 vs HR, 0.92), although neither was statistically significant. The highest risk estimates were observed for high cumulative dose of anxiolytics (HR, 1.33). 

Sensitivity analyses of the two most commonly used anxiolytics found no differences in risk between use of short half-life oxazepam and long half-life diazepam (HR, 1.01 and HR, 1.06, respectively, for ever-use, compared with never-use for oxazepam and diazepam).
 

Brain Atrophy

The researchers investigated potential associations between benzodiazepine use and brain volumes using brain MRI imaging from 4836 participants.

They found that current use of a benzodiazepine at baseline was significantly associated with lower total brain volume — as well as lower hippocampus, amygdala, and thalamus volume cross-sectionally — and with accelerated volume loss of the hippocampus and, to a lesser extent, amygdala longitudinally. 

Imaging findings did not differ by type of benzodiazepine used or cumulative dose. 

“Given the availability of effective alternative pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for anxiety and sleep problems, it is important to carefully consider the necessity of prolonged benzodiazepine use in light of potential detrimental effects on brain health,” the authors wrote. 
 

Risks Go Beyond the Brain

Commenting on the study, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, noted that “chronic benzodiazepine use may reduce neuroplasticity, potentially interfering with the brain’s ability to form new connections and adapt.

“Long-term use can lead to down-regulation of GABA receptors, altering the brain’s natural inhibitory mechanisms and potentially contributing to tolerance and withdrawal symptoms. Prolonged use can also disrupt the balance of various neurotransmitter systems beyond just GABA, potentially affecting mood, cognition, and overall brain function,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study. 

“While the literature is mixed on chronic benzodiazepine use and dementia risk, prolonged use has consistently been associated with accelerated volume loss in certain brain regions, particularly the hippocampus and amygdala,” which are responsible for memory, learning, and emotional regulation, he noted. 

“Beyond cognitive impairments and brain volume loss, chronic benzodiazepine use is associated with tolerance and dependence, potential for abuse, interactions with other drugs, and increased fall risk, especially in older adults,” Dr. Lakhan added.

Current guidelines discourage long-term use of benzodiazepines because of risk for psychological and physical dependence; falls; and cognitive impairment, especially in older adults. Nevertheless, research shows that 30%-40% of older benzodiazepine users stay on the medication beyond the recommended period of several weeks.

Donovan T. Maust, MD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, said in an interview these new findings are consistent with other recently published observational research that suggest benzodiazepine use is not linked to dementia risk. 

“I realize that such meta-analyses that find a positive relationship between benzodiazepines and dementia are out there, but they include older, less rigorous studies,” said Dr. Maust, who was not part of the new study. “In my opinion, the jury is not still out on this topic. However, there are plenty of other reasons to avoid them — and in particular, starting them — in older adults, most notably the increased risk of fall injury as well as increased overdose risk when taken along with opioids.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research supports current guidelines cautioning against long-term use of benzodiazepines.

The study of more than 5000 older adults found that benzodiazepine use was associated with an accelerated reduction in the volume of the hippocampus and amygdala — brain regions involved in memory and mood regulation. However, benzodiazepine use overall was not associated with an increased risk for dementia.

The findings suggest that benzodiazepine use “may have subtle, long-term impact on brain health,” lead investigator Frank Wolters, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in BMC Medicine.
 

Conflicting Evidence 

Benzodiazepines are commonly prescribed in older adults for anxiety and sleep disorders. Though the short-term cognitive side effects are well documented, the long-term impact on neurodegeneration and dementia risk remains unclear. Some studies have linked benzodiazepine use to an increased risk for dementia, whereas others have not.

Dr. Wolters and colleagues assessed the effect of benzodiazepine use on long-term dementia risk and on imaging markers of neurodegeneration in 5443 cognitively healthy adults (mean age, 71 years; 57% women) from the population-based Rotterdam Study. 

Benzodiazepine use between 1991 and 2008 was determined using pharmacy dispensing records, and dementia incidence was determined from medical records. 

Half of the participants had used benzodiazepines at any time in the 15 years before baseline (2005-2008); 47% used anxiolytics, 20% used sedative-hypnotics, 34% used both, and 13% were still using the drugs at the baseline assessment. 

During an average follow-up of 11 years, 13% of participants developed dementia. 

Overall, use of benzodiazepines was not associated with dementia risk, compared with never-use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06), irrespective of cumulative dose. 

The risk for dementia was somewhat higher with any use of anxiolytics than with sedative-hypnotics (HR, 1.17 vs HR, 0.92), although neither was statistically significant. The highest risk estimates were observed for high cumulative dose of anxiolytics (HR, 1.33). 

Sensitivity analyses of the two most commonly used anxiolytics found no differences in risk between use of short half-life oxazepam and long half-life diazepam (HR, 1.01 and HR, 1.06, respectively, for ever-use, compared with never-use for oxazepam and diazepam).
 

Brain Atrophy

The researchers investigated potential associations between benzodiazepine use and brain volumes using brain MRI imaging from 4836 participants.

They found that current use of a benzodiazepine at baseline was significantly associated with lower total brain volume — as well as lower hippocampus, amygdala, and thalamus volume cross-sectionally — and with accelerated volume loss of the hippocampus and, to a lesser extent, amygdala longitudinally. 

Imaging findings did not differ by type of benzodiazepine used or cumulative dose. 

“Given the availability of effective alternative pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for anxiety and sleep problems, it is important to carefully consider the necessity of prolonged benzodiazepine use in light of potential detrimental effects on brain health,” the authors wrote. 
 

Risks Go Beyond the Brain

Commenting on the study, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, noted that “chronic benzodiazepine use may reduce neuroplasticity, potentially interfering with the brain’s ability to form new connections and adapt.

“Long-term use can lead to down-regulation of GABA receptors, altering the brain’s natural inhibitory mechanisms and potentially contributing to tolerance and withdrawal symptoms. Prolonged use can also disrupt the balance of various neurotransmitter systems beyond just GABA, potentially affecting mood, cognition, and overall brain function,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study. 

“While the literature is mixed on chronic benzodiazepine use and dementia risk, prolonged use has consistently been associated with accelerated volume loss in certain brain regions, particularly the hippocampus and amygdala,” which are responsible for memory, learning, and emotional regulation, he noted. 

“Beyond cognitive impairments and brain volume loss, chronic benzodiazepine use is associated with tolerance and dependence, potential for abuse, interactions with other drugs, and increased fall risk, especially in older adults,” Dr. Lakhan added.

Current guidelines discourage long-term use of benzodiazepines because of risk for psychological and physical dependence; falls; and cognitive impairment, especially in older adults. Nevertheless, research shows that 30%-40% of older benzodiazepine users stay on the medication beyond the recommended period of several weeks.

Donovan T. Maust, MD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, said in an interview these new findings are consistent with other recently published observational research that suggest benzodiazepine use is not linked to dementia risk. 

“I realize that such meta-analyses that find a positive relationship between benzodiazepines and dementia are out there, but they include older, less rigorous studies,” said Dr. Maust, who was not part of the new study. “In my opinion, the jury is not still out on this topic. However, there are plenty of other reasons to avoid them — and in particular, starting them — in older adults, most notably the increased risk of fall injury as well as increased overdose risk when taken along with opioids.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research supports current guidelines cautioning against long-term use of benzodiazepines.

The study of more than 5000 older adults found that benzodiazepine use was associated with an accelerated reduction in the volume of the hippocampus and amygdala — brain regions involved in memory and mood regulation. However, benzodiazepine use overall was not associated with an increased risk for dementia.

The findings suggest that benzodiazepine use “may have subtle, long-term impact on brain health,” lead investigator Frank Wolters, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in BMC Medicine.
 

Conflicting Evidence 

Benzodiazepines are commonly prescribed in older adults for anxiety and sleep disorders. Though the short-term cognitive side effects are well documented, the long-term impact on neurodegeneration and dementia risk remains unclear. Some studies have linked benzodiazepine use to an increased risk for dementia, whereas others have not.

Dr. Wolters and colleagues assessed the effect of benzodiazepine use on long-term dementia risk and on imaging markers of neurodegeneration in 5443 cognitively healthy adults (mean age, 71 years; 57% women) from the population-based Rotterdam Study. 

Benzodiazepine use between 1991 and 2008 was determined using pharmacy dispensing records, and dementia incidence was determined from medical records. 

Half of the participants had used benzodiazepines at any time in the 15 years before baseline (2005-2008); 47% used anxiolytics, 20% used sedative-hypnotics, 34% used both, and 13% were still using the drugs at the baseline assessment. 

During an average follow-up of 11 years, 13% of participants developed dementia. 

Overall, use of benzodiazepines was not associated with dementia risk, compared with never-use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06), irrespective of cumulative dose. 

The risk for dementia was somewhat higher with any use of anxiolytics than with sedative-hypnotics (HR, 1.17 vs HR, 0.92), although neither was statistically significant. The highest risk estimates were observed for high cumulative dose of anxiolytics (HR, 1.33). 

Sensitivity analyses of the two most commonly used anxiolytics found no differences in risk between use of short half-life oxazepam and long half-life diazepam (HR, 1.01 and HR, 1.06, respectively, for ever-use, compared with never-use for oxazepam and diazepam).
 

Brain Atrophy

The researchers investigated potential associations between benzodiazepine use and brain volumes using brain MRI imaging from 4836 participants.

They found that current use of a benzodiazepine at baseline was significantly associated with lower total brain volume — as well as lower hippocampus, amygdala, and thalamus volume cross-sectionally — and with accelerated volume loss of the hippocampus and, to a lesser extent, amygdala longitudinally. 

Imaging findings did not differ by type of benzodiazepine used or cumulative dose. 

“Given the availability of effective alternative pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for anxiety and sleep problems, it is important to carefully consider the necessity of prolonged benzodiazepine use in light of potential detrimental effects on brain health,” the authors wrote. 
 

Risks Go Beyond the Brain

Commenting on the study, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, noted that “chronic benzodiazepine use may reduce neuroplasticity, potentially interfering with the brain’s ability to form new connections and adapt.

“Long-term use can lead to down-regulation of GABA receptors, altering the brain’s natural inhibitory mechanisms and potentially contributing to tolerance and withdrawal symptoms. Prolonged use can also disrupt the balance of various neurotransmitter systems beyond just GABA, potentially affecting mood, cognition, and overall brain function,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study. 

“While the literature is mixed on chronic benzodiazepine use and dementia risk, prolonged use has consistently been associated with accelerated volume loss in certain brain regions, particularly the hippocampus and amygdala,” which are responsible for memory, learning, and emotional regulation, he noted. 

“Beyond cognitive impairments and brain volume loss, chronic benzodiazepine use is associated with tolerance and dependence, potential for abuse, interactions with other drugs, and increased fall risk, especially in older adults,” Dr. Lakhan added.

Current guidelines discourage long-term use of benzodiazepines because of risk for psychological and physical dependence; falls; and cognitive impairment, especially in older adults. Nevertheless, research shows that 30%-40% of older benzodiazepine users stay on the medication beyond the recommended period of several weeks.

Donovan T. Maust, MD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, said in an interview these new findings are consistent with other recently published observational research that suggest benzodiazepine use is not linked to dementia risk. 

“I realize that such meta-analyses that find a positive relationship between benzodiazepines and dementia are out there, but they include older, less rigorous studies,” said Dr. Maust, who was not part of the new study. “In my opinion, the jury is not still out on this topic. However, there are plenty of other reasons to avoid them — and in particular, starting them — in older adults, most notably the increased risk of fall injury as well as increased overdose risk when taken along with opioids.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a shifting landscape in dementia risk factors, cardiovascular health is now taking precedence.

That’s according to researchers from University College London (UCL) in the United Kingdom who analyzed 27 papers about dementia that had data collected over more than 70 years. They calculated what share of dementia cases were due to different risk factors. Their findings were recently published in the Lancet Public Health.

Top risk factors for dementia over the years have been hypertension, obesity, diabetes, education, and smoking, according to a news release on the findings. But the prevalence of risk factors has changed over the decades.

Researchers said smoking and education have become less important risk factors because of “population-level interventions,” such as stop-smoking campaigns and compulsory public education. On the other hand, obesity and diabetes rates have increased and become bigger risk factors.

Hypertension remains the greatest risk factor, even though doctors and public health groups are putting more emphasis on managing the condition, the study said.

“Cardiovascular risk factors may have contributed more to dementia risk over time, so these deserve more targeted action for future dementia prevention efforts,” said Naaheed Mukadam, PhD, an associate professor at UCL and the lead author of the study.

Eliminating modifiable risk factors could theoretically prevent 40% of dementia cases, the release said. 

The CDC says that an estimated 5.8 million people in the United States have Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, including 5.6 million people ages 65 and older and about 200,000 under age 65. The UCL release said an estimated 944,000 in the U.K. have dementia. 

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

In a shifting landscape in dementia risk factors, cardiovascular health is now taking precedence.

That’s according to researchers from University College London (UCL) in the United Kingdom who analyzed 27 papers about dementia that had data collected over more than 70 years. They calculated what share of dementia cases were due to different risk factors. Their findings were recently published in the Lancet Public Health.

Top risk factors for dementia over the years have been hypertension, obesity, diabetes, education, and smoking, according to a news release on the findings. But the prevalence of risk factors has changed over the decades.

Researchers said smoking and education have become less important risk factors because of “population-level interventions,” such as stop-smoking campaigns and compulsory public education. On the other hand, obesity and diabetes rates have increased and become bigger risk factors.

Hypertension remains the greatest risk factor, even though doctors and public health groups are putting more emphasis on managing the condition, the study said.

“Cardiovascular risk factors may have contributed more to dementia risk over time, so these deserve more targeted action for future dementia prevention efforts,” said Naaheed Mukadam, PhD, an associate professor at UCL and the lead author of the study.

Eliminating modifiable risk factors could theoretically prevent 40% of dementia cases, the release said. 

The CDC says that an estimated 5.8 million people in the United States have Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, including 5.6 million people ages 65 and older and about 200,000 under age 65. The UCL release said an estimated 944,000 in the U.K. have dementia. 

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

In a shifting landscape in dementia risk factors, cardiovascular health is now taking precedence.

That’s according to researchers from University College London (UCL) in the United Kingdom who analyzed 27 papers about dementia that had data collected over more than 70 years. They calculated what share of dementia cases were due to different risk factors. Their findings were recently published in the Lancet Public Health.

Top risk factors for dementia over the years have been hypertension, obesity, diabetes, education, and smoking, according to a news release on the findings. But the prevalence of risk factors has changed over the decades.

Researchers said smoking and education have become less important risk factors because of “population-level interventions,” such as stop-smoking campaigns and compulsory public education. On the other hand, obesity and diabetes rates have increased and become bigger risk factors.

Hypertension remains the greatest risk factor, even though doctors and public health groups are putting more emphasis on managing the condition, the study said.

“Cardiovascular risk factors may have contributed more to dementia risk over time, so these deserve more targeted action for future dementia prevention efforts,” said Naaheed Mukadam, PhD, an associate professor at UCL and the lead author of the study.

Eliminating modifiable risk factors could theoretically prevent 40% of dementia cases, the release said. 

The CDC says that an estimated 5.8 million people in the United States have Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, including 5.6 million people ages 65 and older and about 200,000 under age 65. The UCL release said an estimated 944,000 in the U.K. have dementia. 

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A work group convened by the Alzheimer’s Association has released revised biology-based criteria for the diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease, including a new biomarker classification system that incorporates fluid and imaging biomarkers as well as an updated disease staging system. 

“Plasma markers are here now, and it’s very important to incorporate them into the criteria for diagnosis,” said senior author Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association chief science officer and medical affairs lead. 

The revised criteria are the first updates since 2018.

“Defining diseases biologically, rather than based on syndromic presentation, has long been standard in many areas of medicine — including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes — and is becoming a unifying concept common to all neurodegenerative diseases,” lead author Clifford Jack Jr, MD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release from the Alzheimer’s Association. 

“These updates to the diagnostic criteria are needed now because we know more about the underlying biology of Alzheimer’s and we are able to measure those changes,” Dr. Jack added. 

The 2024 revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 
 

Core Biomarkers Defined

The revised criteria define Alzheimer’s disease as a biologic process that begins with the appearance of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change (ADNPC) in the absence of symptoms. Progression of the neuropathologic burden leads to the later appearance and progression of clinical symptoms.

The work group organized Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers into three broad categories: (1) core biomarkers of ADNPC, (2) nonspecific biomarkers that are important in Alzheimer’s disease but are also involved in other brain diseases, and (3) biomarkers of diseases or conditions that commonly coexist with Alzheimer’s disease.

Core Alzheimer’s biomarkers are subdivided into Core 1 and Core 2. 

Core 1 biomarkers become abnormal early in the disease course and directly measure either amyloid plaques or phosphorylated tau (p-tau). They include amyloid PET; cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta 42/40 ratio, CSF p-tau181/amyloid beta 42 ratio, and CSF total (t)-tau/amyloid beta 42 ratio; and “accurate” plasma biomarkers, such as p-tau217. 

“An abnormal Core 1 biomarker result is sufficient to establish a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and to inform clinical decision making [sic] throughout the disease continuum,” the work group wrote. 

Core 2 biomarkers become abnormal later in the disease process and are more closely linked with the onset of symptoms. Core 2 biomarkers include tau PET and certain soluble tau fragments associated with tau proteinopathy (eg, MTBR-tau243) but also pT205 and nonphosphorylated mid-region tau fragments. 

Core 2 biomarkers, when combined with Core 1, may be used to stage biologic disease severity; abnormal Core 2 biomarkers “increase confidence that Alzheimer’s disease is contributing to symptoms,” the work group noted. 

The revised criteria give clinicians “the flexibility to use plasma or PET scans or CSF,” Dr. Carrillo said. “They will have several tools that they can choose from and offer this variety of tools to their patients. We need different tools for different individuals. There will be differences in coverage and access to these diagnostics.” 

The revised criteria also include an integrated biologic and clinical staging scheme that acknowledges the fact that common co-pathologies, cognitive reserve, and resistance may modify relationships between clinical and biologic Alzheimer’s disease stages. 
 

Formal Guidelines to Come 

The work group noted that currently, the clinical use of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers is intended for the evaluation of symptomatic patients, not cognitively unimpaired individuals.

Disease-targeted therapies have not yet been approved for cognitively unimpaired individuals. For this reason, the work group currently recommends against diagnostic testing in cognitively unimpaired individuals outside the context of observational or therapeutic research studies. 

This recommendation would change in the future if disease-targeted therapies that are currently being evaluated in trials demonstrate a benefit in preventing cognitive decline and are approved for use in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease, they wrote. 

They emphasize that the revised criteria are not intended to provide step-by-step clinical practice guidelines for clinicians. Rather, they provide general principles to inform diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease that reflect current science.

“This is just the beginning,” said Dr. Carrillo. “This is a gathering of the evidence to date and putting it in one place so we can have a consensus and actually a way to test it and make it better as we add new science.”

This also serves as a “springboard” for the Alzheimer’s Association to create formal clinical guidelines. “That will come, hopefully, over the next 12 months. We’ll be working on it, and we hope to have that in 2025,” Dr. Carrillo said. 

The revised criteria also emphasize the role of the clinician. 

“The biologically based diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is meant to assist, rather than supplant, the clinical evaluation of individuals with cognitive impairment,” the work group wrote in a related commentary published online in Nature Medicine. 

Recent diagnostics and therapeutic developments “herald a virtuous cycle in which improvements in diagnostic methods enable more sophisticated treatment approaches, which in turn steer advances in diagnostic methods,” they continued. “An unchanging principle, however, is that effective treatment will always rely on the ability to diagnose and stage the biology driving the disease process.”

Funding for this research was provided by the National Institutes of Health, Alexander family professorship, GHR Foundation, Alzheimer’s Association, Veterans Administration, Life Molecular Imaging, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gates Foundation, Biogen, C2N Diagnostics, Eisai, Fujirebio, GE Healthcare, Roche, National Institute on Aging, Roche/Genentech, BrightFocus Foundation, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novo Nordisk, Toyama, National MS Society, Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation, and others. A complete list of donors and disclosures is included in the original article.

 A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A work group convened by the Alzheimer’s Association has released revised biology-based criteria for the diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease, including a new biomarker classification system that incorporates fluid and imaging biomarkers as well as an updated disease staging system. 

“Plasma markers are here now, and it’s very important to incorporate them into the criteria for diagnosis,” said senior author Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association chief science officer and medical affairs lead. 

The revised criteria are the first updates since 2018.

“Defining diseases biologically, rather than based on syndromic presentation, has long been standard in many areas of medicine — including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes — and is becoming a unifying concept common to all neurodegenerative diseases,” lead author Clifford Jack Jr, MD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release from the Alzheimer’s Association. 

“These updates to the diagnostic criteria are needed now because we know more about the underlying biology of Alzheimer’s and we are able to measure those changes,” Dr. Jack added. 

The 2024 revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 
 

Core Biomarkers Defined

The revised criteria define Alzheimer’s disease as a biologic process that begins with the appearance of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change (ADNPC) in the absence of symptoms. Progression of the neuropathologic burden leads to the later appearance and progression of clinical symptoms.

The work group organized Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers into three broad categories: (1) core biomarkers of ADNPC, (2) nonspecific biomarkers that are important in Alzheimer’s disease but are also involved in other brain diseases, and (3) biomarkers of diseases or conditions that commonly coexist with Alzheimer’s disease.

Core Alzheimer’s biomarkers are subdivided into Core 1 and Core 2. 

Core 1 biomarkers become abnormal early in the disease course and directly measure either amyloid plaques or phosphorylated tau (p-tau). They include amyloid PET; cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta 42/40 ratio, CSF p-tau181/amyloid beta 42 ratio, and CSF total (t)-tau/amyloid beta 42 ratio; and “accurate” plasma biomarkers, such as p-tau217. 

“An abnormal Core 1 biomarker result is sufficient to establish a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and to inform clinical decision making [sic] throughout the disease continuum,” the work group wrote. 

Core 2 biomarkers become abnormal later in the disease process and are more closely linked with the onset of symptoms. Core 2 biomarkers include tau PET and certain soluble tau fragments associated with tau proteinopathy (eg, MTBR-tau243) but also pT205 and nonphosphorylated mid-region tau fragments. 

Core 2 biomarkers, when combined with Core 1, may be used to stage biologic disease severity; abnormal Core 2 biomarkers “increase confidence that Alzheimer’s disease is contributing to symptoms,” the work group noted. 

The revised criteria give clinicians “the flexibility to use plasma or PET scans or CSF,” Dr. Carrillo said. “They will have several tools that they can choose from and offer this variety of tools to their patients. We need different tools for different individuals. There will be differences in coverage and access to these diagnostics.” 

The revised criteria also include an integrated biologic and clinical staging scheme that acknowledges the fact that common co-pathologies, cognitive reserve, and resistance may modify relationships between clinical and biologic Alzheimer’s disease stages. 
 

Formal Guidelines to Come 

The work group noted that currently, the clinical use of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers is intended for the evaluation of symptomatic patients, not cognitively unimpaired individuals.

Disease-targeted therapies have not yet been approved for cognitively unimpaired individuals. For this reason, the work group currently recommends against diagnostic testing in cognitively unimpaired individuals outside the context of observational or therapeutic research studies. 

This recommendation would change in the future if disease-targeted therapies that are currently being evaluated in trials demonstrate a benefit in preventing cognitive decline and are approved for use in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease, they wrote. 

They emphasize that the revised criteria are not intended to provide step-by-step clinical practice guidelines for clinicians. Rather, they provide general principles to inform diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease that reflect current science.

“This is just the beginning,” said Dr. Carrillo. “This is a gathering of the evidence to date and putting it in one place so we can have a consensus and actually a way to test it and make it better as we add new science.”

This also serves as a “springboard” for the Alzheimer’s Association to create formal clinical guidelines. “That will come, hopefully, over the next 12 months. We’ll be working on it, and we hope to have that in 2025,” Dr. Carrillo said. 

The revised criteria also emphasize the role of the clinician. 

“The biologically based diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is meant to assist, rather than supplant, the clinical evaluation of individuals with cognitive impairment,” the work group wrote in a related commentary published online in Nature Medicine. 

Recent diagnostics and therapeutic developments “herald a virtuous cycle in which improvements in diagnostic methods enable more sophisticated treatment approaches, which in turn steer advances in diagnostic methods,” they continued. “An unchanging principle, however, is that effective treatment will always rely on the ability to diagnose and stage the biology driving the disease process.”

Funding for this research was provided by the National Institutes of Health, Alexander family professorship, GHR Foundation, Alzheimer’s Association, Veterans Administration, Life Molecular Imaging, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gates Foundation, Biogen, C2N Diagnostics, Eisai, Fujirebio, GE Healthcare, Roche, National Institute on Aging, Roche/Genentech, BrightFocus Foundation, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novo Nordisk, Toyama, National MS Society, Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation, and others. A complete list of donors and disclosures is included in the original article.

 A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A work group convened by the Alzheimer’s Association has released revised biology-based criteria for the diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease, including a new biomarker classification system that incorporates fluid and imaging biomarkers as well as an updated disease staging system. 

“Plasma markers are here now, and it’s very important to incorporate them into the criteria for diagnosis,” said senior author Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association chief science officer and medical affairs lead. 

The revised criteria are the first updates since 2018.

“Defining diseases biologically, rather than based on syndromic presentation, has long been standard in many areas of medicine — including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes — and is becoming a unifying concept common to all neurodegenerative diseases,” lead author Clifford Jack Jr, MD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release from the Alzheimer’s Association. 

“These updates to the diagnostic criteria are needed now because we know more about the underlying biology of Alzheimer’s and we are able to measure those changes,” Dr. Jack added. 

The 2024 revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 
 

Core Biomarkers Defined

The revised criteria define Alzheimer’s disease as a biologic process that begins with the appearance of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change (ADNPC) in the absence of symptoms. Progression of the neuropathologic burden leads to the later appearance and progression of clinical symptoms.

The work group organized Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers into three broad categories: (1) core biomarkers of ADNPC, (2) nonspecific biomarkers that are important in Alzheimer’s disease but are also involved in other brain diseases, and (3) biomarkers of diseases or conditions that commonly coexist with Alzheimer’s disease.

Core Alzheimer’s biomarkers are subdivided into Core 1 and Core 2. 

Core 1 biomarkers become abnormal early in the disease course and directly measure either amyloid plaques or phosphorylated tau (p-tau). They include amyloid PET; cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta 42/40 ratio, CSF p-tau181/amyloid beta 42 ratio, and CSF total (t)-tau/amyloid beta 42 ratio; and “accurate” plasma biomarkers, such as p-tau217. 

“An abnormal Core 1 biomarker result is sufficient to establish a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and to inform clinical decision making [sic] throughout the disease continuum,” the work group wrote. 

Core 2 biomarkers become abnormal later in the disease process and are more closely linked with the onset of symptoms. Core 2 biomarkers include tau PET and certain soluble tau fragments associated with tau proteinopathy (eg, MTBR-tau243) but also pT205 and nonphosphorylated mid-region tau fragments. 

Core 2 biomarkers, when combined with Core 1, may be used to stage biologic disease severity; abnormal Core 2 biomarkers “increase confidence that Alzheimer’s disease is contributing to symptoms,” the work group noted. 

The revised criteria give clinicians “the flexibility to use plasma or PET scans or CSF,” Dr. Carrillo said. “They will have several tools that they can choose from and offer this variety of tools to their patients. We need different tools for different individuals. There will be differences in coverage and access to these diagnostics.” 

The revised criteria also include an integrated biologic and clinical staging scheme that acknowledges the fact that common co-pathologies, cognitive reserve, and resistance may modify relationships between clinical and biologic Alzheimer’s disease stages. 
 

Formal Guidelines to Come 

The work group noted that currently, the clinical use of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers is intended for the evaluation of symptomatic patients, not cognitively unimpaired individuals.

Disease-targeted therapies have not yet been approved for cognitively unimpaired individuals. For this reason, the work group currently recommends against diagnostic testing in cognitively unimpaired individuals outside the context of observational or therapeutic research studies. 

This recommendation would change in the future if disease-targeted therapies that are currently being evaluated in trials demonstrate a benefit in preventing cognitive decline and are approved for use in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease, they wrote. 

They emphasize that the revised criteria are not intended to provide step-by-step clinical practice guidelines for clinicians. Rather, they provide general principles to inform diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease that reflect current science.

“This is just the beginning,” said Dr. Carrillo. “This is a gathering of the evidence to date and putting it in one place so we can have a consensus and actually a way to test it and make it better as we add new science.”

This also serves as a “springboard” for the Alzheimer’s Association to create formal clinical guidelines. “That will come, hopefully, over the next 12 months. We’ll be working on it, and we hope to have that in 2025,” Dr. Carrillo said. 

The revised criteria also emphasize the role of the clinician. 

“The biologically based diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is meant to assist, rather than supplant, the clinical evaluation of individuals with cognitive impairment,” the work group wrote in a related commentary published online in Nature Medicine. 

Recent diagnostics and therapeutic developments “herald a virtuous cycle in which improvements in diagnostic methods enable more sophisticated treatment approaches, which in turn steer advances in diagnostic methods,” they continued. “An unchanging principle, however, is that effective treatment will always rely on the ability to diagnose and stage the biology driving the disease process.”

Funding for this research was provided by the National Institutes of Health, Alexander family professorship, GHR Foundation, Alzheimer’s Association, Veterans Administration, Life Molecular Imaging, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gates Foundation, Biogen, C2N Diagnostics, Eisai, Fujirebio, GE Healthcare, Roche, National Institute on Aging, Roche/Genentech, BrightFocus Foundation, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novo Nordisk, Toyama, National MS Society, Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation, and others. A complete list of donors and disclosures is included in the original article.

 A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A tool routinely used to evaluate concussion in college athletes fails to accurately diagnose the condition in many cases, a new study showed.

Investigators found that almost half of athletes diagnosed with a concussion tested normally on the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool 5 (SCAT5), the recommended tool for measuring cognitive skills in concussion evaluations. The most accurate measure of concussion was symptoms reported by the athletes.

“If you don’t do well on the cognitive exam, it suggests you have a concussion. But many people who are concussed do fine on the exam,” lead author Kimberly Harmon, MD, professor of family medicine and section head of sports medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in a news release.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Introduced in 2004, the SCAT was created to standardize the collection of information clinicians use to diagnose concussion, including evaluation of symptoms, orientation, and balance. It also uses a 10-word list to assess immediate memory and delayed recall.

Dr. Harmon’s own experiences as a team physician led her to wonder about the accuracy of the cognitive screening portion of the SCAT. She saw that “some people were concussed, and they did well on the recall test. Some people weren’t concussed, and they didn’t do well. So I thought we should study it,” she said.

Investigators compared 92 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 athletes who had sustained a concussion between 2020 and 2022 and had a concussion evaluation within 48 hours to 92 matched nonconcussed teammates (overall cohort, 52% men). Most concussions occurred in those who played football, followed by volleyball.

All athletes had previously completed NCAA-required baseline concussion screenings. Participants completed the SCAT5 screening test within 2 weeks of the incident concussion.

No significant differences were found between the baseline scores of athletes with and without concussion. Moreover, responses on the word recall section of the SCAT5 held little predictive value for concussion.

Nearly half (45%) of athletes with concussion performed at or even above their baseline cognitive report, which the authors said highlights the limitations of the cognitive components of SCAT5.

The most accurate predictor of concussion was participants’ responses to questions about their symptoms.

“If you get hit in the head and go to the sideline and say, ‘I have a headache, I’m dizzy, I don’t feel right,’ I can say with pretty good assurance that you have a concussion,” Dr. Harmon continued. “I don’t need to do any testing.”

Unfortunately, the problem is “that some athletes don’t want to come out. They don’t report their symptoms or may not recognize their symptoms. So then you need an objective, accurate test to tell you whether you can safely put the athlete back on the field. We don’t have that right now.”

The study did not control for concussion history, and the all–Division 1 cohort means the findings may not be generalizable to other athletes.

Nevertheless, investigators said the study “affirms that reported symptoms are the most sensitive indicator of concussion, and there are limitations to the objective cognitive testing included in the SCAT.” They concluded that concussion “remains a clinical diagnosis that should be based on a thorough review of signs, symptoms, and clinical findings.”

This study was funded in part by donations from University of Washington alumni Jack and Luellen Cherneski and the Chisholm Foundation. Dr. Harmon reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A tool routinely used to evaluate concussion in college athletes fails to accurately diagnose the condition in many cases, a new study showed.

Investigators found that almost half of athletes diagnosed with a concussion tested normally on the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool 5 (SCAT5), the recommended tool for measuring cognitive skills in concussion evaluations. The most accurate measure of concussion was symptoms reported by the athletes.

“If you don’t do well on the cognitive exam, it suggests you have a concussion. But many people who are concussed do fine on the exam,” lead author Kimberly Harmon, MD, professor of family medicine and section head of sports medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in a news release.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Introduced in 2004, the SCAT was created to standardize the collection of information clinicians use to diagnose concussion, including evaluation of symptoms, orientation, and balance. It also uses a 10-word list to assess immediate memory and delayed recall.

Dr. Harmon’s own experiences as a team physician led her to wonder about the accuracy of the cognitive screening portion of the SCAT. She saw that “some people were concussed, and they did well on the recall test. Some people weren’t concussed, and they didn’t do well. So I thought we should study it,” she said.

Investigators compared 92 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 athletes who had sustained a concussion between 2020 and 2022 and had a concussion evaluation within 48 hours to 92 matched nonconcussed teammates (overall cohort, 52% men). Most concussions occurred in those who played football, followed by volleyball.

All athletes had previously completed NCAA-required baseline concussion screenings. Participants completed the SCAT5 screening test within 2 weeks of the incident concussion.

No significant differences were found between the baseline scores of athletes with and without concussion. Moreover, responses on the word recall section of the SCAT5 held little predictive value for concussion.

Nearly half (45%) of athletes with concussion performed at or even above their baseline cognitive report, which the authors said highlights the limitations of the cognitive components of SCAT5.

The most accurate predictor of concussion was participants’ responses to questions about their symptoms.

“If you get hit in the head and go to the sideline and say, ‘I have a headache, I’m dizzy, I don’t feel right,’ I can say with pretty good assurance that you have a concussion,” Dr. Harmon continued. “I don’t need to do any testing.”

Unfortunately, the problem is “that some athletes don’t want to come out. They don’t report their symptoms or may not recognize their symptoms. So then you need an objective, accurate test to tell you whether you can safely put the athlete back on the field. We don’t have that right now.”

The study did not control for concussion history, and the all–Division 1 cohort means the findings may not be generalizable to other athletes.

Nevertheless, investigators said the study “affirms that reported symptoms are the most sensitive indicator of concussion, and there are limitations to the objective cognitive testing included in the SCAT.” They concluded that concussion “remains a clinical diagnosis that should be based on a thorough review of signs, symptoms, and clinical findings.”

This study was funded in part by donations from University of Washington alumni Jack and Luellen Cherneski and the Chisholm Foundation. Dr. Harmon reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A tool routinely used to evaluate concussion in college athletes fails to accurately diagnose the condition in many cases, a new study showed.

Investigators found that almost half of athletes diagnosed with a concussion tested normally on the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool 5 (SCAT5), the recommended tool for measuring cognitive skills in concussion evaluations. The most accurate measure of concussion was symptoms reported by the athletes.

“If you don’t do well on the cognitive exam, it suggests you have a concussion. But many people who are concussed do fine on the exam,” lead author Kimberly Harmon, MD, professor of family medicine and section head of sports medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in a news release.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Introduced in 2004, the SCAT was created to standardize the collection of information clinicians use to diagnose concussion, including evaluation of symptoms, orientation, and balance. It also uses a 10-word list to assess immediate memory and delayed recall.

Dr. Harmon’s own experiences as a team physician led her to wonder about the accuracy of the cognitive screening portion of the SCAT. She saw that “some people were concussed, and they did well on the recall test. Some people weren’t concussed, and they didn’t do well. So I thought we should study it,” she said.

Investigators compared 92 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 athletes who had sustained a concussion between 2020 and 2022 and had a concussion evaluation within 48 hours to 92 matched nonconcussed teammates (overall cohort, 52% men). Most concussions occurred in those who played football, followed by volleyball.

All athletes had previously completed NCAA-required baseline concussion screenings. Participants completed the SCAT5 screening test within 2 weeks of the incident concussion.

No significant differences were found between the baseline scores of athletes with and without concussion. Moreover, responses on the word recall section of the SCAT5 held little predictive value for concussion.

Nearly half (45%) of athletes with concussion performed at or even above their baseline cognitive report, which the authors said highlights the limitations of the cognitive components of SCAT5.

The most accurate predictor of concussion was participants’ responses to questions about their symptoms.

“If you get hit in the head and go to the sideline and say, ‘I have a headache, I’m dizzy, I don’t feel right,’ I can say with pretty good assurance that you have a concussion,” Dr. Harmon continued. “I don’t need to do any testing.”

Unfortunately, the problem is “that some athletes don’t want to come out. They don’t report their symptoms or may not recognize their symptoms. So then you need an objective, accurate test to tell you whether you can safely put the athlete back on the field. We don’t have that right now.”

The study did not control for concussion history, and the all–Division 1 cohort means the findings may not be generalizable to other athletes.

Nevertheless, investigators said the study “affirms that reported symptoms are the most sensitive indicator of concussion, and there are limitations to the objective cognitive testing included in the SCAT.” They concluded that concussion “remains a clinical diagnosis that should be based on a thorough review of signs, symptoms, and clinical findings.”

This study was funded in part by donations from University of Washington alumni Jack and Luellen Cherneski and the Chisholm Foundation. Dr. Harmon reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers have identified a form of B12 deficiency caused by autoantibodies that specifically affects the central nervous system.

Discovered while studying a puzzling case of one patient with inexplicable neurological systems, the same autoantibody was detected in a small percentage of healthy individuals and was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

“I didn’t think this single investigation was going to yield a broader phenomenon with other patients,” lead author John V. Pluvinage, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “It started as an N-of-one study just based on scientific curiosity.”

“It’s a beautifully done study,” added Betty Diamond, MD, director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, commenting on the research. It uncovers “yet another example of a disease where antibodies getting into the brain are the problem.”

The research was published in Science Translational Medicine.
 

The Patient

The investigation began in 2014 with a 67-year-old woman presenting with difficulty speaking, ataxia, and tremor. Her blood tests showed no signs of B12 deficiency, and testing for known autoantibodies came back negative.

Solving this mystery required a more exhaustive approach. The patient enrolled in a research study focused on identifying novel autoantibodies in suspected neuroinflammatory disease, using a screening technology called phage immunoprecipitation sequencing.

“We adapted this technology to screen for autoantibodies in an unbiased manner by displaying every peptide across the human proteome and then mixing those peptides with patient antibodies in order to figure out what the antibodies are binding to,” explained Dr. Pluvinage.

Using this method, he and colleagues discovered that this woman had autoantibodies that target CD320 — a receptor important in the cellular uptake of B12. While her blood tests were normal, B12 in the patient’s cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) was “nearly undetectable,” Dr. Pluvinage said. Using an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the researchers determined that anti-CD320 impaired the transport of B12 across the BBB by targeting receptors on the cell surface.

Treating the patient with a combination of immunosuppressant medication and high-dose B12 supplementation increased B12 levels in the patient’s CSF and improved clinical symptoms.
 

Identifying More Cases

Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues tested the 254 other individuals enrolled in the neuroinflammatory disease study and identified seven participants with CSF anti-CD320 autoantibodies — four of whom had low B12 in the CSF.

In a group of healthy controls, anti-CD320 seropositivity was 6%, similar to the positivity rate in 132 paired serum and CSF samples from a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (5.7%). In this group of patients with multiple sclerosis, anti-CD320 presence in the blood was highly predictive of high levels of CSF methylmalonic acid, a metabolic marker of B12 deficiency.

Researchers also screened for anti-CD320 seropositivity in 408 patients with non-neurologic SLE and 28 patients with neuropsychiatric SLE and found that the autoantibody was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neurologic symptoms (21.4%) compared with in those with non-neurologic SLE (5.6%).

“The clinical relevance of anti-CD320 in healthy controls remains uncertain,” the authors wrote. However, it is not uncommon to have healthy patients with known autoantibodies.

“There are always people who have autoantibodies who don’t get disease, and why that is we don’t know,” said Dr. Diamond. Some individuals may develop clinical symptoms later, or there may be other reasons why they are protected against disease.

Pluvinage is eager to follow some seropositive healthy individuals to track their neurologic health overtime, to see if the presence of anti-CD320 “alters their neurologic trajectories.”
 

Alternative Pathways

Lastly, Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues set out to explain why patients with anti-CD320 in their blood did not show any signs of B12 deficiency. They hypothesized that another receptor may be compensating and still allowing blood cells to take up B12. Using CRISPR screening, the team identified the low-density lipoprotein receptor as an alternative pathway to B12 uptake.

“These findings suggest a model in which anti-CD320 impairs transport of B12 across the BBB, leading to autoimmune B12 central deficiency (ABCD) with varied neurologic manifestations but sparing peripheral manifestations of B12 deficiency,” the authors wrote.

The work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Defense, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Laboratory for Cell Analysis Shared Resource Facility, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Valhalla Foundation, and the Westridge Foundation. Dr. Pluvinage is a co-inventor on a patent application related to this work. Dr. Diamond had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers have identified a form of B12 deficiency caused by autoantibodies that specifically affects the central nervous system.

Discovered while studying a puzzling case of one patient with inexplicable neurological systems, the same autoantibody was detected in a small percentage of healthy individuals and was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

“I didn’t think this single investigation was going to yield a broader phenomenon with other patients,” lead author John V. Pluvinage, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “It started as an N-of-one study just based on scientific curiosity.”

“It’s a beautifully done study,” added Betty Diamond, MD, director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, commenting on the research. It uncovers “yet another example of a disease where antibodies getting into the brain are the problem.”

The research was published in Science Translational Medicine.
 

The Patient

The investigation began in 2014 with a 67-year-old woman presenting with difficulty speaking, ataxia, and tremor. Her blood tests showed no signs of B12 deficiency, and testing for known autoantibodies came back negative.

Solving this mystery required a more exhaustive approach. The patient enrolled in a research study focused on identifying novel autoantibodies in suspected neuroinflammatory disease, using a screening technology called phage immunoprecipitation sequencing.

“We adapted this technology to screen for autoantibodies in an unbiased manner by displaying every peptide across the human proteome and then mixing those peptides with patient antibodies in order to figure out what the antibodies are binding to,” explained Dr. Pluvinage.

Using this method, he and colleagues discovered that this woman had autoantibodies that target CD320 — a receptor important in the cellular uptake of B12. While her blood tests were normal, B12 in the patient’s cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) was “nearly undetectable,” Dr. Pluvinage said. Using an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the researchers determined that anti-CD320 impaired the transport of B12 across the BBB by targeting receptors on the cell surface.

Treating the patient with a combination of immunosuppressant medication and high-dose B12 supplementation increased B12 levels in the patient’s CSF and improved clinical symptoms.
 

Identifying More Cases

Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues tested the 254 other individuals enrolled in the neuroinflammatory disease study and identified seven participants with CSF anti-CD320 autoantibodies — four of whom had low B12 in the CSF.

In a group of healthy controls, anti-CD320 seropositivity was 6%, similar to the positivity rate in 132 paired serum and CSF samples from a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (5.7%). In this group of patients with multiple sclerosis, anti-CD320 presence in the blood was highly predictive of high levels of CSF methylmalonic acid, a metabolic marker of B12 deficiency.

Researchers also screened for anti-CD320 seropositivity in 408 patients with non-neurologic SLE and 28 patients with neuropsychiatric SLE and found that the autoantibody was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neurologic symptoms (21.4%) compared with in those with non-neurologic SLE (5.6%).

“The clinical relevance of anti-CD320 in healthy controls remains uncertain,” the authors wrote. However, it is not uncommon to have healthy patients with known autoantibodies.

“There are always people who have autoantibodies who don’t get disease, and why that is we don’t know,” said Dr. Diamond. Some individuals may develop clinical symptoms later, or there may be other reasons why they are protected against disease.

Pluvinage is eager to follow some seropositive healthy individuals to track their neurologic health overtime, to see if the presence of anti-CD320 “alters their neurologic trajectories.”
 

Alternative Pathways

Lastly, Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues set out to explain why patients with anti-CD320 in their blood did not show any signs of B12 deficiency. They hypothesized that another receptor may be compensating and still allowing blood cells to take up B12. Using CRISPR screening, the team identified the low-density lipoprotein receptor as an alternative pathway to B12 uptake.

“These findings suggest a model in which anti-CD320 impairs transport of B12 across the BBB, leading to autoimmune B12 central deficiency (ABCD) with varied neurologic manifestations but sparing peripheral manifestations of B12 deficiency,” the authors wrote.

The work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Defense, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Laboratory for Cell Analysis Shared Resource Facility, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Valhalla Foundation, and the Westridge Foundation. Dr. Pluvinage is a co-inventor on a patent application related to this work. Dr. Diamond had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers have identified a form of B12 deficiency caused by autoantibodies that specifically affects the central nervous system.

Discovered while studying a puzzling case of one patient with inexplicable neurological systems, the same autoantibody was detected in a small percentage of healthy individuals and was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

“I didn’t think this single investigation was going to yield a broader phenomenon with other patients,” lead author John V. Pluvinage, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “It started as an N-of-one study just based on scientific curiosity.”

“It’s a beautifully done study,” added Betty Diamond, MD, director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, commenting on the research. It uncovers “yet another example of a disease where antibodies getting into the brain are the problem.”

The research was published in Science Translational Medicine.
 

The Patient

The investigation began in 2014 with a 67-year-old woman presenting with difficulty speaking, ataxia, and tremor. Her blood tests showed no signs of B12 deficiency, and testing for known autoantibodies came back negative.

Solving this mystery required a more exhaustive approach. The patient enrolled in a research study focused on identifying novel autoantibodies in suspected neuroinflammatory disease, using a screening technology called phage immunoprecipitation sequencing.

“We adapted this technology to screen for autoantibodies in an unbiased manner by displaying every peptide across the human proteome and then mixing those peptides with patient antibodies in order to figure out what the antibodies are binding to,” explained Dr. Pluvinage.

Using this method, he and colleagues discovered that this woman had autoantibodies that target CD320 — a receptor important in the cellular uptake of B12. While her blood tests were normal, B12 in the patient’s cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) was “nearly undetectable,” Dr. Pluvinage said. Using an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the researchers determined that anti-CD320 impaired the transport of B12 across the BBB by targeting receptors on the cell surface.

Treating the patient with a combination of immunosuppressant medication and high-dose B12 supplementation increased B12 levels in the patient’s CSF and improved clinical symptoms.
 

Identifying More Cases

Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues tested the 254 other individuals enrolled in the neuroinflammatory disease study and identified seven participants with CSF anti-CD320 autoantibodies — four of whom had low B12 in the CSF.

In a group of healthy controls, anti-CD320 seropositivity was 6%, similar to the positivity rate in 132 paired serum and CSF samples from a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (5.7%). In this group of patients with multiple sclerosis, anti-CD320 presence in the blood was highly predictive of high levels of CSF methylmalonic acid, a metabolic marker of B12 deficiency.

Researchers also screened for anti-CD320 seropositivity in 408 patients with non-neurologic SLE and 28 patients with neuropsychiatric SLE and found that the autoantibody was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neurologic symptoms (21.4%) compared with in those with non-neurologic SLE (5.6%).

“The clinical relevance of anti-CD320 in healthy controls remains uncertain,” the authors wrote. However, it is not uncommon to have healthy patients with known autoantibodies.

“There are always people who have autoantibodies who don’t get disease, and why that is we don’t know,” said Dr. Diamond. Some individuals may develop clinical symptoms later, or there may be other reasons why they are protected against disease.

Pluvinage is eager to follow some seropositive healthy individuals to track their neurologic health overtime, to see if the presence of anti-CD320 “alters their neurologic trajectories.”
 

Alternative Pathways

Lastly, Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues set out to explain why patients with anti-CD320 in their blood did not show any signs of B12 deficiency. They hypothesized that another receptor may be compensating and still allowing blood cells to take up B12. Using CRISPR screening, the team identified the low-density lipoprotein receptor as an alternative pathway to B12 uptake.

“These findings suggest a model in which anti-CD320 impairs transport of B12 across the BBB, leading to autoimmune B12 central deficiency (ABCD) with varied neurologic manifestations but sparing peripheral manifestations of B12 deficiency,” the authors wrote.

The work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Defense, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Laboratory for Cell Analysis Shared Resource Facility, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Valhalla Foundation, and the Westridge Foundation. Dr. Pluvinage is a co-inventor on a patent application related to this work. Dr. Diamond had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

She was young, neatly dressed, professional. I don’t remember her name, though she handed me a business card as soon as I stepped up to the front window.

I thought she was a new drug rep to my territory, and I usually try to say “hi” when they first come in. They’re just doing their job, and I don’t mind chatting for a few minutes.

But she, as it turned out, was here for a whole new thing. Taking out a glossy brochure, she dived into a spiel about my offering a medical credit card through my office. I would get paid quickly, I might even get some extra money from patient interest payments, it is convenient for patients, win-win situation all around, yadda yadda yadda.

I smiled, thanked her for coming in, but told her this wasn’t a good fit for my practice.

I’m well aware that keeping a small practice afloat ain’t easy. Medicine is one of the few fields (unless you’re strictly doing cash pay) where we can’t raise prices to keep up with inflation. Well, we can, but what we get paid won’t change. That’s the nature of dealing with Medicare and insurance. What you charge and what you’ll get (and have to accept) are generally not the same.

But even so, I try to stick with what I know — being a neurologist. I’m not here to offer a range of financial services. I have neither the time, nor interest, to run a patient’s copay while trying to sell them on a medical credit card.

For that matter I’m not going to set up shop selling vitamin supplements, hangover-curing infusions, endorsing products on X, or any of the other dubious things touted as “thinking outside the box” ways to increase revenue.

I suppose some will say I’m old-fashioned, or this is why my practice operates on a thin margin, or that I’m focusing more on patients than business. I don’t mind. Caring for patients is why I’m here.

I also hear the argument that if I don’t market a medical credit card (or whatever), someone else will. That’s fine. Let them. I wish them good luck. It’s just not for me.

Like I’ve said in the past, I’m an old dog, but a happy one. I’ll leave the new tricks to someone else.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

She was young, neatly dressed, professional. I don’t remember her name, though she handed me a business card as soon as I stepped up to the front window.

I thought she was a new drug rep to my territory, and I usually try to say “hi” when they first come in. They’re just doing their job, and I don’t mind chatting for a few minutes.

But she, as it turned out, was here for a whole new thing. Taking out a glossy brochure, she dived into a spiel about my offering a medical credit card through my office. I would get paid quickly, I might even get some extra money from patient interest payments, it is convenient for patients, win-win situation all around, yadda yadda yadda.

I smiled, thanked her for coming in, but told her this wasn’t a good fit for my practice.

I’m well aware that keeping a small practice afloat ain’t easy. Medicine is one of the few fields (unless you’re strictly doing cash pay) where we can’t raise prices to keep up with inflation. Well, we can, but what we get paid won’t change. That’s the nature of dealing with Medicare and insurance. What you charge and what you’ll get (and have to accept) are generally not the same.

But even so, I try to stick with what I know — being a neurologist. I’m not here to offer a range of financial services. I have neither the time, nor interest, to run a patient’s copay while trying to sell them on a medical credit card.

For that matter I’m not going to set up shop selling vitamin supplements, hangover-curing infusions, endorsing products on X, or any of the other dubious things touted as “thinking outside the box” ways to increase revenue.

I suppose some will say I’m old-fashioned, or this is why my practice operates on a thin margin, or that I’m focusing more on patients than business. I don’t mind. Caring for patients is why I’m here.

I also hear the argument that if I don’t market a medical credit card (or whatever), someone else will. That’s fine. Let them. I wish them good luck. It’s just not for me.

Like I’ve said in the past, I’m an old dog, but a happy one. I’ll leave the new tricks to someone else.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

She was young, neatly dressed, professional. I don’t remember her name, though she handed me a business card as soon as I stepped up to the front window.

I thought she was a new drug rep to my territory, and I usually try to say “hi” when they first come in. They’re just doing their job, and I don’t mind chatting for a few minutes.

But she, as it turned out, was here for a whole new thing. Taking out a glossy brochure, she dived into a spiel about my offering a medical credit card through my office. I would get paid quickly, I might even get some extra money from patient interest payments, it is convenient for patients, win-win situation all around, yadda yadda yadda.

I smiled, thanked her for coming in, but told her this wasn’t a good fit for my practice.

I’m well aware that keeping a small practice afloat ain’t easy. Medicine is one of the few fields (unless you’re strictly doing cash pay) where we can’t raise prices to keep up with inflation. Well, we can, but what we get paid won’t change. That’s the nature of dealing with Medicare and insurance. What you charge and what you’ll get (and have to accept) are generally not the same.

But even so, I try to stick with what I know — being a neurologist. I’m not here to offer a range of financial services. I have neither the time, nor interest, to run a patient’s copay while trying to sell them on a medical credit card.

For that matter I’m not going to set up shop selling vitamin supplements, hangover-curing infusions, endorsing products on X, or any of the other dubious things touted as “thinking outside the box” ways to increase revenue.

I suppose some will say I’m old-fashioned, or this is why my practice operates on a thin margin, or that I’m focusing more on patients than business. I don’t mind. Caring for patients is why I’m here.

I also hear the argument that if I don’t market a medical credit card (or whatever), someone else will. That’s fine. Let them. I wish them good luck. It’s just not for me.

Like I’ve said in the past, I’m an old dog, but a happy one. I’ll leave the new tricks to someone else.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

SAN DIEGO — In the phase 3 ALLEVIATE study, eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck) failed to achieve a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome of reducing the number of weekly attacks from week 1 to week 2 in patients with episodic cluster headache. However, the drug met secondary outcomes of reduction in weekly attacks, mean change in baseline pain, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score.

Eptinezumab is the latest of multiple anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) therapies to fail in the clinic against episodic cluster headache, all using weekly attacks as a primary endpoint, though therapies also scored positive results for secondary endpoints, according to Stewart Tepper, MD, who presented the study results at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Eptinezumab is already approved for migraine, and is fully bioavailable by the end of an infusion. “That was why we thought this might be a really interesting treatment for prevention of cluster headache,” said Dr. Tepper, who is VP of external research at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.
 

Are We Looking at the Wrong Endpoint?

Secondary endpoints offered more encouragement. “For each week, the eptinezumab looked either numerically higher than the placebo or nominal statistical significance was achieved. By week 4, two-thirds of the patients had at least a 50% reduction in their number of weekly cluster attacks. Then the average pain intensity for the day and the patient global impression of change were all in favor of eptinezumab. That made us interested in whether we’re missing something, whether this is maybe not the correct endpoint to be looking at,” said Dr. Tepper.

He suggested that it may be time for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reconsider the endpoints used in clinical trials for cluster headaches.

Study criteria included cluster periods that lasted at least 6 weeks, and at least 1 year since the diagnosis of episodic cluster headache. The study enrolled patients who were out of their cluster period, who underwent a second screening of 7-14 days after they entered a new cycle. After that, they were randomized to an injection of placebo or 400 mg eptinezumab, and followed for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, all patients received an injection of 400 mg eptinezumab and placebo patients were crossed over to eptinezumab and followed out to 24 weeks.

The study population included 231 patients (78% male; mean age, 44 years), with a mean of 2.7 cluster headache attacks per day an average duration of 62 minutes per attack. The worst pain was reported as excruciating in 59% of participants.

The mean change in number of weekly attacks in weeks 1 and 2, compared with baseline, was not statistically significant (–4.6 with eptinezumab, –4.6 with placebo; P = .5048). More patients in the eptinezumab group had a 50% or greater reduction in attack frequency in weeks 3 (50.9% vs 37.3%; P < .05), week 3 (62.5% vs 43.8%; P < .01), and week 4 (66.7% vs 50.5%; P < .01). The difference in mean change in pain from baseline became statistically significant at week 3 and 4 (P < .01). There were also statistically significant differences in PGIC score at weeks 1, 2, and 4. The frequency of any treatment-emergent adverse event was similar in the eptinezumab and placebo groups (25.0% vs 26.5%), and only one led to treatment withdrawal in the eptinezumab group (0.9%).
 

Thoughts on Redesigning Cluster Headache Clinical Trials

During the Q&A session, Andrea Harriott, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the session’s moderator, asked Dr. Tepper for his thoughts on how to design a good cluster headache trial. “I think we should go to the regulators and say we’re looking at the wrong outcome measure, and that we should use responder rate as the primary endpoint. That’s my guess. I think after four failed cluster studies for anti-CGRP therapies in terms of primary endpoint, all of which suggest some benefit, I think maybe we are looking at the wrong endpoint,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper was also asked about the potential for comparative efficacy trials testing anti-CGRP versus usual therapy, or usual therapy combined with antibodies against usual therapy. He noted that he had coauthored a recent commentary that responded to International Headache Society 2022 guidelines for randomized, placebo-controlled trials in cluster headache. “We actually did suggest comparative effectiveness [trials], both for recruitment and for compassion, but one of the problems is that verapamil is not even FDA approved for cluster headache in the US, and galcanezumab (Emgality, Eli Lilly) [is not approved] in the EU, so it becomes difficult from a regulatory standpoint to set that up, and you have to have buy in from regulatory authorities,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper has financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including consulting for/advising Lundbeck, which funded the study. Dr. Harriott has served on the scientific advisory board of Theranica and has an authorship agreement with AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO — In the phase 3 ALLEVIATE study, eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck) failed to achieve a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome of reducing the number of weekly attacks from week 1 to week 2 in patients with episodic cluster headache. However, the drug met secondary outcomes of reduction in weekly attacks, mean change in baseline pain, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score.

Eptinezumab is the latest of multiple anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) therapies to fail in the clinic against episodic cluster headache, all using weekly attacks as a primary endpoint, though therapies also scored positive results for secondary endpoints, according to Stewart Tepper, MD, who presented the study results at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Eptinezumab is already approved for migraine, and is fully bioavailable by the end of an infusion. “That was why we thought this might be a really interesting treatment for prevention of cluster headache,” said Dr. Tepper, who is VP of external research at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.
 

Are We Looking at the Wrong Endpoint?

Secondary endpoints offered more encouragement. “For each week, the eptinezumab looked either numerically higher than the placebo or nominal statistical significance was achieved. By week 4, two-thirds of the patients had at least a 50% reduction in their number of weekly cluster attacks. Then the average pain intensity for the day and the patient global impression of change were all in favor of eptinezumab. That made us interested in whether we’re missing something, whether this is maybe not the correct endpoint to be looking at,” said Dr. Tepper.

He suggested that it may be time for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reconsider the endpoints used in clinical trials for cluster headaches.

Study criteria included cluster periods that lasted at least 6 weeks, and at least 1 year since the diagnosis of episodic cluster headache. The study enrolled patients who were out of their cluster period, who underwent a second screening of 7-14 days after they entered a new cycle. After that, they were randomized to an injection of placebo or 400 mg eptinezumab, and followed for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, all patients received an injection of 400 mg eptinezumab and placebo patients were crossed over to eptinezumab and followed out to 24 weeks.

The study population included 231 patients (78% male; mean age, 44 years), with a mean of 2.7 cluster headache attacks per day an average duration of 62 minutes per attack. The worst pain was reported as excruciating in 59% of participants.

The mean change in number of weekly attacks in weeks 1 and 2, compared with baseline, was not statistically significant (–4.6 with eptinezumab, –4.6 with placebo; P = .5048). More patients in the eptinezumab group had a 50% or greater reduction in attack frequency in weeks 3 (50.9% vs 37.3%; P < .05), week 3 (62.5% vs 43.8%; P < .01), and week 4 (66.7% vs 50.5%; P < .01). The difference in mean change in pain from baseline became statistically significant at week 3 and 4 (P < .01). There were also statistically significant differences in PGIC score at weeks 1, 2, and 4. The frequency of any treatment-emergent adverse event was similar in the eptinezumab and placebo groups (25.0% vs 26.5%), and only one led to treatment withdrawal in the eptinezumab group (0.9%).
 

Thoughts on Redesigning Cluster Headache Clinical Trials

During the Q&A session, Andrea Harriott, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the session’s moderator, asked Dr. Tepper for his thoughts on how to design a good cluster headache trial. “I think we should go to the regulators and say we’re looking at the wrong outcome measure, and that we should use responder rate as the primary endpoint. That’s my guess. I think after four failed cluster studies for anti-CGRP therapies in terms of primary endpoint, all of which suggest some benefit, I think maybe we are looking at the wrong endpoint,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper was also asked about the potential for comparative efficacy trials testing anti-CGRP versus usual therapy, or usual therapy combined with antibodies against usual therapy. He noted that he had coauthored a recent commentary that responded to International Headache Society 2022 guidelines for randomized, placebo-controlled trials in cluster headache. “We actually did suggest comparative effectiveness [trials], both for recruitment and for compassion, but one of the problems is that verapamil is not even FDA approved for cluster headache in the US, and galcanezumab (Emgality, Eli Lilly) [is not approved] in the EU, so it becomes difficult from a regulatory standpoint to set that up, and you have to have buy in from regulatory authorities,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper has financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including consulting for/advising Lundbeck, which funded the study. Dr. Harriott has served on the scientific advisory board of Theranica and has an authorship agreement with AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO — In the phase 3 ALLEVIATE study, eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck) failed to achieve a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome of reducing the number of weekly attacks from week 1 to week 2 in patients with episodic cluster headache. However, the drug met secondary outcomes of reduction in weekly attacks, mean change in baseline pain, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score.

Eptinezumab is the latest of multiple anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) therapies to fail in the clinic against episodic cluster headache, all using weekly attacks as a primary endpoint, though therapies also scored positive results for secondary endpoints, according to Stewart Tepper, MD, who presented the study results at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Eptinezumab is already approved for migraine, and is fully bioavailable by the end of an infusion. “That was why we thought this might be a really interesting treatment for prevention of cluster headache,” said Dr. Tepper, who is VP of external research at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.
 

Are We Looking at the Wrong Endpoint?

Secondary endpoints offered more encouragement. “For each week, the eptinezumab looked either numerically higher than the placebo or nominal statistical significance was achieved. By week 4, two-thirds of the patients had at least a 50% reduction in their number of weekly cluster attacks. Then the average pain intensity for the day and the patient global impression of change were all in favor of eptinezumab. That made us interested in whether we’re missing something, whether this is maybe not the correct endpoint to be looking at,” said Dr. Tepper.

He suggested that it may be time for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reconsider the endpoints used in clinical trials for cluster headaches.

Study criteria included cluster periods that lasted at least 6 weeks, and at least 1 year since the diagnosis of episodic cluster headache. The study enrolled patients who were out of their cluster period, who underwent a second screening of 7-14 days after they entered a new cycle. After that, they were randomized to an injection of placebo or 400 mg eptinezumab, and followed for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, all patients received an injection of 400 mg eptinezumab and placebo patients were crossed over to eptinezumab and followed out to 24 weeks.

The study population included 231 patients (78% male; mean age, 44 years), with a mean of 2.7 cluster headache attacks per day an average duration of 62 minutes per attack. The worst pain was reported as excruciating in 59% of participants.

The mean change in number of weekly attacks in weeks 1 and 2, compared with baseline, was not statistically significant (–4.6 with eptinezumab, –4.6 with placebo; P = .5048). More patients in the eptinezumab group had a 50% or greater reduction in attack frequency in weeks 3 (50.9% vs 37.3%; P < .05), week 3 (62.5% vs 43.8%; P < .01), and week 4 (66.7% vs 50.5%; P < .01). The difference in mean change in pain from baseline became statistically significant at week 3 and 4 (P < .01). There were also statistically significant differences in PGIC score at weeks 1, 2, and 4. The frequency of any treatment-emergent adverse event was similar in the eptinezumab and placebo groups (25.0% vs 26.5%), and only one led to treatment withdrawal in the eptinezumab group (0.9%).
 

Thoughts on Redesigning Cluster Headache Clinical Trials

During the Q&A session, Andrea Harriott, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the session’s moderator, asked Dr. Tepper for his thoughts on how to design a good cluster headache trial. “I think we should go to the regulators and say we’re looking at the wrong outcome measure, and that we should use responder rate as the primary endpoint. That’s my guess. I think after four failed cluster studies for anti-CGRP therapies in terms of primary endpoint, all of which suggest some benefit, I think maybe we are looking at the wrong endpoint,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper was also asked about the potential for comparative efficacy trials testing anti-CGRP versus usual therapy, or usual therapy combined with antibodies against usual therapy. He noted that he had coauthored a recent commentary that responded to International Headache Society 2022 guidelines for randomized, placebo-controlled trials in cluster headache. “We actually did suggest comparative effectiveness [trials], both for recruitment and for compassion, but one of the problems is that verapamil is not even FDA approved for cluster headache in the US, and galcanezumab (Emgality, Eli Lilly) [is not approved] in the EU, so it becomes difficult from a regulatory standpoint to set that up, and you have to have buy in from regulatory authorities,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper has financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including consulting for/advising Lundbeck, which funded the study. Dr. Harriott has served on the scientific advisory board of Theranica and has an authorship agreement with AbbVie.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance that does not require additional switching studies for biosimilars seeking interchangeability. These studies were previously recommended to demonstrate that switching between the biosimilar and its reference product showed no greater risk than using the reference product alone.

“The recommendations in today’s draft guidance, when finalized, will provide clarity and transparency about the FDA’s thinking and align the review and approval process with existing and emerging science,” said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the FDA’s Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in a statement on June 20. “We have gained valuable experience reviewing both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar medications over the past 10 years. Both biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars meet the same high standard of biosimilarity for FDA approval and both are as safe and effective as the reference product.”

An interchangeable status allows a biosimilar product to be swapped with the reference product without involvement from the prescribing provider, depending on state law.

While switching studies were not required under previous FDA guidance, the 2019 document did state that the agency “expects that applications generally will include data from a switching study or studies in one or more appropriate conditions of use.”

However, of the 13 biosimilars that received interchangeability status, 9 did not include switching study data.

“Experience has shown that, for the products approved as biosimilars to date, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy is insignificant following single or multiple switches between a reference product and a biosimilar product,” the FDA stated. The agency’s investigators also conducted a systematic review of switching studies, which found no differences in risk for death, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuations in participants switched between biosimilars and reference products and those that remained on reference products.

“Additionally, today’s analytical tools can accurately evaluate the structure and effects [of] biologic products, both in the lab (in vitro) and in living organisms (in vivo) with more precision and sensitivity than switching studies,” the agency noted.

The FDA is now calling for commentary on these draft recommendations to be submitted by Aug. 20, 2024.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance that does not require additional switching studies for biosimilars seeking interchangeability. These studies were previously recommended to demonstrate that switching between the biosimilar and its reference product showed no greater risk than using the reference product alone.

“The recommendations in today’s draft guidance, when finalized, will provide clarity and transparency about the FDA’s thinking and align the review and approval process with existing and emerging science,” said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the FDA’s Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in a statement on June 20. “We have gained valuable experience reviewing both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar medications over the past 10 years. Both biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars meet the same high standard of biosimilarity for FDA approval and both are as safe and effective as the reference product.”

An interchangeable status allows a biosimilar product to be swapped with the reference product without involvement from the prescribing provider, depending on state law.

While switching studies were not required under previous FDA guidance, the 2019 document did state that the agency “expects that applications generally will include data from a switching study or studies in one or more appropriate conditions of use.”

However, of the 13 biosimilars that received interchangeability status, 9 did not include switching study data.

“Experience has shown that, for the products approved as biosimilars to date, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy is insignificant following single or multiple switches between a reference product and a biosimilar product,” the FDA stated. The agency’s investigators also conducted a systematic review of switching studies, which found no differences in risk for death, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuations in participants switched between biosimilars and reference products and those that remained on reference products.

“Additionally, today’s analytical tools can accurately evaluate the structure and effects [of] biologic products, both in the lab (in vitro) and in living organisms (in vivo) with more precision and sensitivity than switching studies,” the agency noted.

The FDA is now calling for commentary on these draft recommendations to be submitted by Aug. 20, 2024.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance that does not require additional switching studies for biosimilars seeking interchangeability. These studies were previously recommended to demonstrate that switching between the biosimilar and its reference product showed no greater risk than using the reference product alone.

“The recommendations in today’s draft guidance, when finalized, will provide clarity and transparency about the FDA’s thinking and align the review and approval process with existing and emerging science,” said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the FDA’s Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in a statement on June 20. “We have gained valuable experience reviewing both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar medications over the past 10 years. Both biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars meet the same high standard of biosimilarity for FDA approval and both are as safe and effective as the reference product.”

An interchangeable status allows a biosimilar product to be swapped with the reference product without involvement from the prescribing provider, depending on state law.

While switching studies were not required under previous FDA guidance, the 2019 document did state that the agency “expects that applications generally will include data from a switching study or studies in one or more appropriate conditions of use.”

However, of the 13 biosimilars that received interchangeability status, 9 did not include switching study data.

“Experience has shown that, for the products approved as biosimilars to date, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy is insignificant following single or multiple switches between a reference product and a biosimilar product,” the FDA stated. The agency’s investigators also conducted a systematic review of switching studies, which found no differences in risk for death, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuations in participants switched between biosimilars and reference products and those that remained on reference products.

“Additionally, today’s analytical tools can accurately evaluate the structure and effects [of] biologic products, both in the lab (in vitro) and in living organisms (in vivo) with more precision and sensitivity than switching studies,” the agency noted.

The FDA is now calling for commentary on these draft recommendations to be submitted by Aug. 20, 2024.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain medications that are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are associated with a reduced risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), the second most common neurodegenerative type of dementia after Alzheimer’s disease.

Investigators found older men taking alpha-1 blockers terazosin, doxazosin, or alfuzosin (Tz/Dz/Az) were 40% less likely to develop DLB than those taking tamsulosin and 37% less likely than men taking the 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARI) finasteride and dutasteride.

“These results are exciting because right now there are no drugs to prevent or treat dementia with Lewy bodies,” study investigator Jacob E. Simmering, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in a press release. “If we can determine that an existing drug can offer protection against this debilitating disease, that has the potential to greatly reduce its effects.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Increasing ATP Neuroprotective?

In recent years, investigators have speculated that improving metabolic activity in the brain may reduce the risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD). 

In previous studies, the use of Tz/Dz/Az resulted in the activation of phosphoglycerate kinase-1 (PKG1), which increases the availability of adenosine triphosphate (ATP).

There have been case reports of PD being linked to mutations affecting PGK1. Researchers speculate that increased ATP availability in neurons resulting from the activation of PKG1 allows cells to better adapt to aging and synuclein aggregation.

To investigate whether glycolysis-enhancing drugs might be neuroprotective in those with DLB, investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using a commercial health insurance claims database and a Medicare supplemental health claims database to follow a sample of men aged > 40 years taking Tz, Dz, or Az (n = 126,313), tamsulosin (n = 437,035), or a 5ARI (n = 80,158) for BPH.

Tamsulosin and 5ARI medications do not activate PKG1, so investigators used them as comparators to Tz/Dz/Az. Participants were followed from the medication initiation date until the end of enrollment in the claims databases.

After following claimants for an average of 3 years, 195 participants developed DLB who were taking Tz, Dz, or Az, a rate of 5.21 cases per 10,000 people per year.

During the follow-up period, 1286 participants taking tamsulosin developed DLB, a rate of 10.8 per 10,000 people per year, and among those taking 5ARIs, 193 cases of DLB were reported, a rate of 7.8 per 10,000 people per year.

After matching the groups by age and other health conditions that may explain differences in rates of DLB, men taking Tz/Dz/Az had a 60% lower risk than those taking tamsulosin (P < .001) and a 37% lower risk for developing DLB than those taking the 5ARI medications (P = .012).

“This emerging evidence of a protective association across a spectrum of diseases suggests a broad neuroprotective effect for Tz/Dz/Az, consistent with our hypothesized mechanism that activation of PGK1 increases brain ATP and mitigates neurodegeneration,” the authors wrote.

Study limitations include excluding women from the study, so the findings cannot be generalized to women. Claims analyses were limited to administrative data that could have been incorrect, and the analyses did not include medication dosages.

No study funding or author disclosures were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain medications that are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are associated with a reduced risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), the second most common neurodegenerative type of dementia after Alzheimer’s disease.

Investigators found older men taking alpha-1 blockers terazosin, doxazosin, or alfuzosin (Tz/Dz/Az) were 40% less likely to develop DLB than those taking tamsulosin and 37% less likely than men taking the 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARI) finasteride and dutasteride.

“These results are exciting because right now there are no drugs to prevent or treat dementia with Lewy bodies,” study investigator Jacob E. Simmering, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in a press release. “If we can determine that an existing drug can offer protection against this debilitating disease, that has the potential to greatly reduce its effects.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Increasing ATP Neuroprotective?

In recent years, investigators have speculated that improving metabolic activity in the brain may reduce the risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD). 

In previous studies, the use of Tz/Dz/Az resulted in the activation of phosphoglycerate kinase-1 (PKG1), which increases the availability of adenosine triphosphate (ATP).

There have been case reports of PD being linked to mutations affecting PGK1. Researchers speculate that increased ATP availability in neurons resulting from the activation of PKG1 allows cells to better adapt to aging and synuclein aggregation.

To investigate whether glycolysis-enhancing drugs might be neuroprotective in those with DLB, investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using a commercial health insurance claims database and a Medicare supplemental health claims database to follow a sample of men aged > 40 years taking Tz, Dz, or Az (n = 126,313), tamsulosin (n = 437,035), or a 5ARI (n = 80,158) for BPH.

Tamsulosin and 5ARI medications do not activate PKG1, so investigators used them as comparators to Tz/Dz/Az. Participants were followed from the medication initiation date until the end of enrollment in the claims databases.

After following claimants for an average of 3 years, 195 participants developed DLB who were taking Tz, Dz, or Az, a rate of 5.21 cases per 10,000 people per year.

During the follow-up period, 1286 participants taking tamsulosin developed DLB, a rate of 10.8 per 10,000 people per year, and among those taking 5ARIs, 193 cases of DLB were reported, a rate of 7.8 per 10,000 people per year.

After matching the groups by age and other health conditions that may explain differences in rates of DLB, men taking Tz/Dz/Az had a 60% lower risk than those taking tamsulosin (P < .001) and a 37% lower risk for developing DLB than those taking the 5ARI medications (P = .012).

“This emerging evidence of a protective association across a spectrum of diseases suggests a broad neuroprotective effect for Tz/Dz/Az, consistent with our hypothesized mechanism that activation of PGK1 increases brain ATP and mitigates neurodegeneration,” the authors wrote.

Study limitations include excluding women from the study, so the findings cannot be generalized to women. Claims analyses were limited to administrative data that could have been incorrect, and the analyses did not include medication dosages.

No study funding or author disclosures were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain medications that are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are associated with a reduced risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), the second most common neurodegenerative type of dementia after Alzheimer’s disease.

Investigators found older men taking alpha-1 blockers terazosin, doxazosin, or alfuzosin (Tz/Dz/Az) were 40% less likely to develop DLB than those taking tamsulosin and 37% less likely than men taking the 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARI) finasteride and dutasteride.

“These results are exciting because right now there are no drugs to prevent or treat dementia with Lewy bodies,” study investigator Jacob E. Simmering, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in a press release. “If we can determine that an existing drug can offer protection against this debilitating disease, that has the potential to greatly reduce its effects.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Increasing ATP Neuroprotective?

In recent years, investigators have speculated that improving metabolic activity in the brain may reduce the risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD). 

In previous studies, the use of Tz/Dz/Az resulted in the activation of phosphoglycerate kinase-1 (PKG1), which increases the availability of adenosine triphosphate (ATP).

There have been case reports of PD being linked to mutations affecting PGK1. Researchers speculate that increased ATP availability in neurons resulting from the activation of PKG1 allows cells to better adapt to aging and synuclein aggregation.

To investigate whether glycolysis-enhancing drugs might be neuroprotective in those with DLB, investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using a commercial health insurance claims database and a Medicare supplemental health claims database to follow a sample of men aged > 40 years taking Tz, Dz, or Az (n = 126,313), tamsulosin (n = 437,035), or a 5ARI (n = 80,158) for BPH.

Tamsulosin and 5ARI medications do not activate PKG1, so investigators used them as comparators to Tz/Dz/Az. Participants were followed from the medication initiation date until the end of enrollment in the claims databases.

After following claimants for an average of 3 years, 195 participants developed DLB who were taking Tz, Dz, or Az, a rate of 5.21 cases per 10,000 people per year.

During the follow-up period, 1286 participants taking tamsulosin developed DLB, a rate of 10.8 per 10,000 people per year, and among those taking 5ARIs, 193 cases of DLB were reported, a rate of 7.8 per 10,000 people per year.

After matching the groups by age and other health conditions that may explain differences in rates of DLB, men taking Tz/Dz/Az had a 60% lower risk than those taking tamsulosin (P < .001) and a 37% lower risk for developing DLB than those taking the 5ARI medications (P = .012).

“This emerging evidence of a protective association across a spectrum of diseases suggests a broad neuroprotective effect for Tz/Dz/Az, consistent with our hypothesized mechanism that activation of PGK1 increases brain ATP and mitigates neurodegeneration,” the authors wrote.

Study limitations include excluding women from the study, so the findings cannot be generalized to women. Claims analyses were limited to administrative data that could have been incorrect, and the analyses did not include medication dosages.

No study funding or author disclosures were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.