In an industry brimming with opportunity and ongoing transformation, it is easy to feel indecisive about your next professional step when ample career paths exist in hospital medicine.

Yingkei Hui, MD, FHM, is an academic hospitalist at St. Vincent Indianapolis, and a Society of Hospital Medicine member since 2015. Seeking to set herself apart as an aspiring patient safety and quality improvement leader while continuing her professional development, she looked to SHM’s Fellow designation as the next piece of her career puzzle.

With more than 14 years of experience in the health care industry, Dr. Hui fell in love with the specialty because of its flexibility and patient-centric focus.

“I have a broad interest in medicine and want to learn everything under the larger umbrella of medicine,” she said. “I also find myself deeply in love with hospital medicine because it provides me with the opportunity to participate in various hospital committees and allows me to enjoy my practice from a macroscopic view of U.S. health care transformation – especially given the popular value-based patient care approach from recent years.”

Dr. Hui’s breadth of experience has allowed her to gain a unique set of perspectives and experiences from international and domestic standpoints. From attending medical school at the Chinese University of Hong Kong to completing her residency on the east coast at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia – part of the University of Pennsylvania Health System – Dr. Hui has held active medical licenses in New Jersey and currently, Indiana.

“SHM’s Fellow designation allows me to challenge myself in setting my career goal as a patient safety and quality improvement leader in my program,” she said. “It means a lot to me as it is a stand-out recognition of my participation in and contribution to patient care in my institution.”

When asked about the most rewarding aspect of being a part of the hospital medicine community, Dr. Hui identified “satisfaction in the teaching role.” She said she is “motivated by the holistic care for the patients, the integration of medical knowledge and coordination of care, and also the opportunity to conduct quality improvement projects.”

Motivated by her colleagues, Dr. Hui credits SHM with providing her with the inspiration and tools to push herself and advance her career in hospital medicine.

“I enjoy immersing myself in SHM’s patient safety and quality improvement resources; they are perfect for frontline hospitalists and also provide CME [continuing medical education],” she noted. “My previous medical directors were all Senior Fellows; they are my role models and continue to inspire me throughout my career.”

Dr. Hui also said that networking within the SHM community has been encouraging. “I’ve met talented Fellows at a number of hospital medicine annual conferences who have inspired me in the areas of patient care, education, and health promotion,” she explained. “Some of them have extensive publications; they are truly amazing physicians. SHM’s Annual Conference provides great opportunities for networking.”

As Dr. Hui continues to progress her career in hospital medicine, she believes that communication is a key pillar in her success. “Be a true listener and fill your heart with compassion, empathy, and courage,” she said. “Recognize your role as the enabler for the patients to improve their health.”

Completing her Master’s degree in population health management at Johns Hopkins University and expecting to graduate in May 2020, Dr. Hui is the designer of system safety (comprising patient safety, second victim safety, quality improvement, and just culture) in the academic setting of her residency program. She is also chairing a pioneer project for the St. Vincent IM residency program.

Dr. Hui plans to apply for a Senior Fellow designation with SHM in the future.

If you would like to join Dr. Hui and other like-minded hospital medicine leaders in taking your career to the next level, SHM is currently recruiting for the Fellows and Senior Fellows: Class of 2020. Applications are open until Nov. 29 of this year. These designations are available across a variety of membership categories, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and qualified practice administrators. Dedicated to promoting excellence, innovation, and improving the quality of patient care, Fellows designations provide members with a distinguishing credential as established pioneers in the industry.

For more information and to review your eligibility, visit hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.
 

Ms. Cowan is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

In an industry brimming with opportunity and ongoing transformation, it is easy to feel indecisive about your next professional step when ample career paths exist in hospital medicine.

Yingkei Hui, MD, FHM, is an academic hospitalist at St. Vincent Indianapolis, and a Society of Hospital Medicine member since 2015. Seeking to set herself apart as an aspiring patient safety and quality improvement leader while continuing her professional development, she looked to SHM’s Fellow designation as the next piece of her career puzzle.

With more than 14 years of experience in the health care industry, Dr. Hui fell in love with the specialty because of its flexibility and patient-centric focus.

“I have a broad interest in medicine and want to learn everything under the larger umbrella of medicine,” she said. “I also find myself deeply in love with hospital medicine because it provides me with the opportunity to participate in various hospital committees and allows me to enjoy my practice from a macroscopic view of U.S. health care transformation – especially given the popular value-based patient care approach from recent years.”

Dr. Hui’s breadth of experience has allowed her to gain a unique set of perspectives and experiences from international and domestic standpoints. From attending medical school at the Chinese University of Hong Kong to completing her residency on the east coast at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia – part of the University of Pennsylvania Health System – Dr. Hui has held active medical licenses in New Jersey and currently, Indiana.

“SHM’s Fellow designation allows me to challenge myself in setting my career goal as a patient safety and quality improvement leader in my program,” she said. “It means a lot to me as it is a stand-out recognition of my participation in and contribution to patient care in my institution.”

When asked about the most rewarding aspect of being a part of the hospital medicine community, Dr. Hui identified “satisfaction in the teaching role.” She said she is “motivated by the holistic care for the patients, the integration of medical knowledge and coordination of care, and also the opportunity to conduct quality improvement projects.”

Motivated by her colleagues, Dr. Hui credits SHM with providing her with the inspiration and tools to push herself and advance her career in hospital medicine.

“I enjoy immersing myself in SHM’s patient safety and quality improvement resources; they are perfect for frontline hospitalists and also provide CME [continuing medical education],” she noted. “My previous medical directors were all Senior Fellows; they are my role models and continue to inspire me throughout my career.”

Dr. Hui also said that networking within the SHM community has been encouraging. “I’ve met talented Fellows at a number of hospital medicine annual conferences who have inspired me in the areas of patient care, education, and health promotion,” she explained. “Some of them have extensive publications; they are truly amazing physicians. SHM’s Annual Conference provides great opportunities for networking.”

As Dr. Hui continues to progress her career in hospital medicine, she believes that communication is a key pillar in her success. “Be a true listener and fill your heart with compassion, empathy, and courage,” she said. “Recognize your role as the enabler for the patients to improve their health.”

Completing her Master’s degree in population health management at Johns Hopkins University and expecting to graduate in May 2020, Dr. Hui is the designer of system safety (comprising patient safety, second victim safety, quality improvement, and just culture) in the academic setting of her residency program. She is also chairing a pioneer project for the St. Vincent IM residency program.

Dr. Hui plans to apply for a Senior Fellow designation with SHM in the future.

If you would like to join Dr. Hui and other like-minded hospital medicine leaders in taking your career to the next level, SHM is currently recruiting for the Fellows and Senior Fellows: Class of 2020. Applications are open until Nov. 29 of this year. These designations are available across a variety of membership categories, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and qualified practice administrators. Dedicated to promoting excellence, innovation, and improving the quality of patient care, Fellows designations provide members with a distinguishing credential as established pioneers in the industry.

For more information and to review your eligibility, visit hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.
 

Ms. Cowan is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

In an industry brimming with opportunity and ongoing transformation, it is easy to feel indecisive about your next professional step when ample career paths exist in hospital medicine.

Yingkei Hui, MD, FHM, is an academic hospitalist at St. Vincent Indianapolis, and a Society of Hospital Medicine member since 2015. Seeking to set herself apart as an aspiring patient safety and quality improvement leader while continuing her professional development, she looked to SHM’s Fellow designation as the next piece of her career puzzle.

With more than 14 years of experience in the health care industry, Dr. Hui fell in love with the specialty because of its flexibility and patient-centric focus.

“I have a broad interest in medicine and want to learn everything under the larger umbrella of medicine,” she said. “I also find myself deeply in love with hospital medicine because it provides me with the opportunity to participate in various hospital committees and allows me to enjoy my practice from a macroscopic view of U.S. health care transformation – especially given the popular value-based patient care approach from recent years.”

Dr. Hui’s breadth of experience has allowed her to gain a unique set of perspectives and experiences from international and domestic standpoints. From attending medical school at the Chinese University of Hong Kong to completing her residency on the east coast at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia – part of the University of Pennsylvania Health System – Dr. Hui has held active medical licenses in New Jersey and currently, Indiana.

“SHM’s Fellow designation allows me to challenge myself in setting my career goal as a patient safety and quality improvement leader in my program,” she said. “It means a lot to me as it is a stand-out recognition of my participation in and contribution to patient care in my institution.”

When asked about the most rewarding aspect of being a part of the hospital medicine community, Dr. Hui identified “satisfaction in the teaching role.” She said she is “motivated by the holistic care for the patients, the integration of medical knowledge and coordination of care, and also the opportunity to conduct quality improvement projects.”

Motivated by her colleagues, Dr. Hui credits SHM with providing her with the inspiration and tools to push herself and advance her career in hospital medicine.

“I enjoy immersing myself in SHM’s patient safety and quality improvement resources; they are perfect for frontline hospitalists and also provide CME [continuing medical education],” she noted. “My previous medical directors were all Senior Fellows; they are my role models and continue to inspire me throughout my career.”

Dr. Hui also said that networking within the SHM community has been encouraging. “I’ve met talented Fellows at a number of hospital medicine annual conferences who have inspired me in the areas of patient care, education, and health promotion,” she explained. “Some of them have extensive publications; they are truly amazing physicians. SHM’s Annual Conference provides great opportunities for networking.”

As Dr. Hui continues to progress her career in hospital medicine, she believes that communication is a key pillar in her success. “Be a true listener and fill your heart with compassion, empathy, and courage,” she said. “Recognize your role as the enabler for the patients to improve their health.”

Completing her Master’s degree in population health management at Johns Hopkins University and expecting to graduate in May 2020, Dr. Hui is the designer of system safety (comprising patient safety, second victim safety, quality improvement, and just culture) in the academic setting of her residency program. She is also chairing a pioneer project for the St. Vincent IM residency program.

Dr. Hui plans to apply for a Senior Fellow designation with SHM in the future.

If you would like to join Dr. Hui and other like-minded hospital medicine leaders in taking your career to the next level, SHM is currently recruiting for the Fellows and Senior Fellows: Class of 2020. Applications are open until Nov. 29 of this year. These designations are available across a variety of membership categories, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and qualified practice administrators. Dedicated to promoting excellence, innovation, and improving the quality of patient care, Fellows designations provide members with a distinguishing credential as established pioneers in the industry.

For more information and to review your eligibility, visit hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.
 

Ms. Cowan is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Breast cancer screening recommendations have evolved over the past decade. The new U.S. Preventive Services Take Force recommendations detailing screening for patients at increased risk of BRCA1/2 mutations have added another dimension to screening for breast and associated cancers for primary care physicians. BRCA1/2 genes are tumor-suppressor genes. Mutations in these genes place women at an increased risk for developing breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Detection of BRCA1/2 mutations through genetic screening can provide patients with more information about their cancer risk and can lead to discussion of prophylactic therapies. This includes increased screening frequency, medical therapy, and surgical interventions.

New USPSTF recommendations address who is at an increased risk for BRCA1/2 mutations. They recommend using screening tools focusing on family history that primary care physicians can utilize to determine who should be referred for genetic counseling to discuss the risks and benefits of genetic screening. The following are the task force’s two primary recommendations:


The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation)


The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation)


Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer and cancer death for women in the United States. Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths for women in the U.S. By age 70, women with BRCA1/2 mutations have a 45%-65% cumulative lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.

Mutations in BRCA1, specifically, are associated with a 39% lifetime risk for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. In contrast, mutations in BRCA2 are associated with a 10%-17% lifetime risk.

The USPSTF also underscores the increased prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Three out of seven familial risk assessment tools inquire about Jewish ancestry. This is because the Ashkenazi Jewish population have a higher prevalence of three founder mutations in the BRCA1/2 gene. A member of this population has a 1 in 40 chance of carrying one of these three mutations, whereas the general population has a 1 in 300 chance.

The USPSTF recommends a multistep process of screening. The first step is taking a family history of cancer. For women who have a family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or a personal history of these cancers, a brief familial risk assessment tool should be used to determine the need for referral for in-depth genetic counseling to determine the need for genetic testing.

It is important to recognize that the validated tools recommended by the USPSTF are specific for genetic risk assessment. General breast cancer risk assessment tools, including the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, which is based on the Gail model, are not recommended.

The sensitivity of the tools recommended by the USPSTF range between 77% and 100%. A number of tools are given as an option with no one tool being better than the other. Perhaps the easiest to implement of the validated tools recommended is the Pedigree Assessment Tool. For this tool, points are assigned for every family member with breast or ovarian cancer as indicated in the table below.

The bottom line

USPSTF recommended that primary care physicians should use familial risk assessment tools to screen women for BRCA1/2 mutations. This includes women with a personal and/or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or women with a family history of BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Patients who test positive through one of the suggested screening tools should be referred for genetic counseling. This could lead to genetic testing and subsequent prophylactic therapies and/or increased screenings if the patient so desires. It is of importance to note the USPSTF recommends against routine screening of BRCA1/2 gene mutations for women who do not meet the above requirements.

Reference

USPSTF Recommendation: Assessment, counseling, and testing for BRCA-related cancer. JAMA. 2019;322(7):652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987.
 

Dr. Style is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

Breast cancer screening recommendations have evolved over the past decade. The new U.S. Preventive Services Take Force recommendations detailing screening for patients at increased risk of BRCA1/2 mutations have added another dimension to screening for breast and associated cancers for primary care physicians. BRCA1/2 genes are tumor-suppressor genes. Mutations in these genes place women at an increased risk for developing breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Detection of BRCA1/2 mutations through genetic screening can provide patients with more information about their cancer risk and can lead to discussion of prophylactic therapies. This includes increased screening frequency, medical therapy, and surgical interventions.

New USPSTF recommendations address who is at an increased risk for BRCA1/2 mutations. They recommend using screening tools focusing on family history that primary care physicians can utilize to determine who should be referred for genetic counseling to discuss the risks and benefits of genetic screening. The following are the task force’s two primary recommendations:


The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation)


The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation)


Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer and cancer death for women in the United States. Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths for women in the U.S. By age 70, women with BRCA1/2 mutations have a 45%-65% cumulative lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.

Mutations in BRCA1, specifically, are associated with a 39% lifetime risk for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. In contrast, mutations in BRCA2 are associated with a 10%-17% lifetime risk.

The USPSTF also underscores the increased prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Three out of seven familial risk assessment tools inquire about Jewish ancestry. This is because the Ashkenazi Jewish population have a higher prevalence of three founder mutations in the BRCA1/2 gene. A member of this population has a 1 in 40 chance of carrying one of these three mutations, whereas the general population has a 1 in 300 chance.

The USPSTF recommends a multistep process of screening. The first step is taking a family history of cancer. For women who have a family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or a personal history of these cancers, a brief familial risk assessment tool should be used to determine the need for referral for in-depth genetic counseling to determine the need for genetic testing.

It is important to recognize that the validated tools recommended by the USPSTF are specific for genetic risk assessment. General breast cancer risk assessment tools, including the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, which is based on the Gail model, are not recommended.

The sensitivity of the tools recommended by the USPSTF range between 77% and 100%. A number of tools are given as an option with no one tool being better than the other. Perhaps the easiest to implement of the validated tools recommended is the Pedigree Assessment Tool. For this tool, points are assigned for every family member with breast or ovarian cancer as indicated in the table below.

The bottom line

USPSTF recommended that primary care physicians should use familial risk assessment tools to screen women for BRCA1/2 mutations. This includes women with a personal and/or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or women with a family history of BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Patients who test positive through one of the suggested screening tools should be referred for genetic counseling. This could lead to genetic testing and subsequent prophylactic therapies and/or increased screenings if the patient so desires. It is of importance to note the USPSTF recommends against routine screening of BRCA1/2 gene mutations for women who do not meet the above requirements.

Reference

USPSTF Recommendation: Assessment, counseling, and testing for BRCA-related cancer. JAMA. 2019;322(7):652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987.
 

Dr. Style is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

Breast cancer screening recommendations have evolved over the past decade. The new U.S. Preventive Services Take Force recommendations detailing screening for patients at increased risk of BRCA1/2 mutations have added another dimension to screening for breast and associated cancers for primary care physicians. BRCA1/2 genes are tumor-suppressor genes. Mutations in these genes place women at an increased risk for developing breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Detection of BRCA1/2 mutations through genetic screening can provide patients with more information about their cancer risk and can lead to discussion of prophylactic therapies. This includes increased screening frequency, medical therapy, and surgical interventions.

New USPSTF recommendations address who is at an increased risk for BRCA1/2 mutations. They recommend using screening tools focusing on family history that primary care physicians can utilize to determine who should be referred for genetic counseling to discuss the risks and benefits of genetic screening. The following are the task force’s two primary recommendations:


The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation)


The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation)


Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer and cancer death for women in the United States. Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths for women in the U.S. By age 70, women with BRCA1/2 mutations have a 45%-65% cumulative lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.

Mutations in BRCA1, specifically, are associated with a 39% lifetime risk for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. In contrast, mutations in BRCA2 are associated with a 10%-17% lifetime risk.

The USPSTF also underscores the increased prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Three out of seven familial risk assessment tools inquire about Jewish ancestry. This is because the Ashkenazi Jewish population have a higher prevalence of three founder mutations in the BRCA1/2 gene. A member of this population has a 1 in 40 chance of carrying one of these three mutations, whereas the general population has a 1 in 300 chance.

The USPSTF recommends a multistep process of screening. The first step is taking a family history of cancer. For women who have a family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or a personal history of these cancers, a brief familial risk assessment tool should be used to determine the need for referral for in-depth genetic counseling to determine the need for genetic testing.

It is important to recognize that the validated tools recommended by the USPSTF are specific for genetic risk assessment. General breast cancer risk assessment tools, including the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, which is based on the Gail model, are not recommended.

The sensitivity of the tools recommended by the USPSTF range between 77% and 100%. A number of tools are given as an option with no one tool being better than the other. Perhaps the easiest to implement of the validated tools recommended is the Pedigree Assessment Tool. For this tool, points are assigned for every family member with breast or ovarian cancer as indicated in the table below.

The bottom line

USPSTF recommended that primary care physicians should use familial risk assessment tools to screen women for BRCA1/2 mutations. This includes women with a personal and/or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or women with a family history of BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Patients who test positive through one of the suggested screening tools should be referred for genetic counseling. This could lead to genetic testing and subsequent prophylactic therapies and/or increased screenings if the patient so desires. It is of importance to note the USPSTF recommends against routine screening of BRCA1/2 gene mutations for women who do not meet the above requirements.

Reference

USPSTF Recommendation: Assessment, counseling, and testing for BRCA-related cancer. JAMA. 2019;322(7):652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987.
 

Dr. Style is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Among children with intractable seizures and chronic gastrointestinal symptoms, adherence to a gluten-free diet may reduce seizure burden, according to a retrospective chart review presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Associations between celiac disease and seizures may have implications for screening and treatment, said study author Shanna Swartwood, MD, a fellow in the department of pediatric neurology at University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“Screening for [celiac disease] early in patients with epilepsy, specifically with temporal EEG findings and intractable epilepsy, is warranted given the improvement of seizure burden that may result from exclusion of gluten from the diet,” said Dr. Swartwood and colleagues.

About 10% of patients with celiac disease have clinical neurologic manifestations, such as seizures. To characterize features of epilepsy in a pediatric population with celiac disease and to examine the effect of a gluten-free diet on seizure burden, Dr. Swartwood and colleagues reviewed patients treated at Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City since 2002. They identified patients with ICD-10 codes for seizures or epilepsy and celiac disease and reviewed 187 charts in all.

In all, 40 patients with seizures had biopsy-proven celiac disease, and 22 had a diagnosis of celiac disease based on the presence of antibodies. Among those with biopsy-proven celiac disease, 43% had intractable seizures. Among those with antibody-positive celiac disease, 31% had intractable seizures.

Among patients with intractable epilepsy, seizure onset preceded the diagnosis of celiac disease by an average of 5 years. For patients with nonintractable epilepsy, the first seizure occurred 1 year before the celiac disease diagnosis on average, but some patients received a celiac disease diagnosis first.

Focal seizures with secondary generalization and generalized tonic clonic seizures were the most common seizure types in this cohort. Epileptiform activity most often was seen in the temporal lobe. While other studies in patients with celiac disease have found occipital epileptiform activity to be the most common, only one patient in this cohort had activity in that location, Dr. Swartwood noted.

Patients with intractable seizures who adhered to a gluten-free diet “had a fairly robust response in terms of seizure improvement,” she said. Seizure improvement, including a decrease in seizure frequency or a decrease in antiepileptic medication dosage, occurred in seven of nine patients in the biopsy-proven group and in two of three patients in the antibody-positive group who adhered to a gluten-free diet and had intractable seizures. One patient was able to stop antiepileptic medication, and one patient had a complete resolution of seizure activity.

The researchers plan to further study the relationship between celiac disease and epilepsy, including whether various HLA subtypes of celiac disease correlate with seizures, said coinvestigator Cristina Trandafir, MD, PhD, assistant professor of pediatric neurology at University of Utah.

The chart review included relatively few patients with limited data. Nevertheless, the results suggest that there may be “substantial lag time” from first seizure to celiac disease diagnosis and that “earlier diagnosis and earlier placement on a gluten-free diet may be beneficial,” Dr. Swartwood said. Celiac disease may be asymptomatic, and screening for celiac disease with a blood test may make sense for patients with intractable seizures, she said.

The researchers had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Swartwood S et al. CNS 2019. Abstract 63.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Among children with intractable seizures and chronic gastrointestinal symptoms, adherence to a gluten-free diet may reduce seizure burden, according to a retrospective chart review presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Associations between celiac disease and seizures may have implications for screening and treatment, said study author Shanna Swartwood, MD, a fellow in the department of pediatric neurology at University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“Screening for [celiac disease] early in patients with epilepsy, specifically with temporal EEG findings and intractable epilepsy, is warranted given the improvement of seizure burden that may result from exclusion of gluten from the diet,” said Dr. Swartwood and colleagues.

About 10% of patients with celiac disease have clinical neurologic manifestations, such as seizures. To characterize features of epilepsy in a pediatric population with celiac disease and to examine the effect of a gluten-free diet on seizure burden, Dr. Swartwood and colleagues reviewed patients treated at Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City since 2002. They identified patients with ICD-10 codes for seizures or epilepsy and celiac disease and reviewed 187 charts in all.

In all, 40 patients with seizures had biopsy-proven celiac disease, and 22 had a diagnosis of celiac disease based on the presence of antibodies. Among those with biopsy-proven celiac disease, 43% had intractable seizures. Among those with antibody-positive celiac disease, 31% had intractable seizures.

Among patients with intractable epilepsy, seizure onset preceded the diagnosis of celiac disease by an average of 5 years. For patients with nonintractable epilepsy, the first seizure occurred 1 year before the celiac disease diagnosis on average, but some patients received a celiac disease diagnosis first.

Focal seizures with secondary generalization and generalized tonic clonic seizures were the most common seizure types in this cohort. Epileptiform activity most often was seen in the temporal lobe. While other studies in patients with celiac disease have found occipital epileptiform activity to be the most common, only one patient in this cohort had activity in that location, Dr. Swartwood noted.

Patients with intractable seizures who adhered to a gluten-free diet “had a fairly robust response in terms of seizure improvement,” she said. Seizure improvement, including a decrease in seizure frequency or a decrease in antiepileptic medication dosage, occurred in seven of nine patients in the biopsy-proven group and in two of three patients in the antibody-positive group who adhered to a gluten-free diet and had intractable seizures. One patient was able to stop antiepileptic medication, and one patient had a complete resolution of seizure activity.

The researchers plan to further study the relationship between celiac disease and epilepsy, including whether various HLA subtypes of celiac disease correlate with seizures, said coinvestigator Cristina Trandafir, MD, PhD, assistant professor of pediatric neurology at University of Utah.

The chart review included relatively few patients with limited data. Nevertheless, the results suggest that there may be “substantial lag time” from first seizure to celiac disease diagnosis and that “earlier diagnosis and earlier placement on a gluten-free diet may be beneficial,” Dr. Swartwood said. Celiac disease may be asymptomatic, and screening for celiac disease with a blood test may make sense for patients with intractable seizures, she said.

The researchers had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Swartwood S et al. CNS 2019. Abstract 63.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Among children with intractable seizures and chronic gastrointestinal symptoms, adherence to a gluten-free diet may reduce seizure burden, according to a retrospective chart review presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Associations between celiac disease and seizures may have implications for screening and treatment, said study author Shanna Swartwood, MD, a fellow in the department of pediatric neurology at University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“Screening for [celiac disease] early in patients with epilepsy, specifically with temporal EEG findings and intractable epilepsy, is warranted given the improvement of seizure burden that may result from exclusion of gluten from the diet,” said Dr. Swartwood and colleagues.

About 10% of patients with celiac disease have clinical neurologic manifestations, such as seizures. To characterize features of epilepsy in a pediatric population with celiac disease and to examine the effect of a gluten-free diet on seizure burden, Dr. Swartwood and colleagues reviewed patients treated at Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City since 2002. They identified patients with ICD-10 codes for seizures or epilepsy and celiac disease and reviewed 187 charts in all.

In all, 40 patients with seizures had biopsy-proven celiac disease, and 22 had a diagnosis of celiac disease based on the presence of antibodies. Among those with biopsy-proven celiac disease, 43% had intractable seizures. Among those with antibody-positive celiac disease, 31% had intractable seizures.

Among patients with intractable epilepsy, seizure onset preceded the diagnosis of celiac disease by an average of 5 years. For patients with nonintractable epilepsy, the first seizure occurred 1 year before the celiac disease diagnosis on average, but some patients received a celiac disease diagnosis first.

Focal seizures with secondary generalization and generalized tonic clonic seizures were the most common seizure types in this cohort. Epileptiform activity most often was seen in the temporal lobe. While other studies in patients with celiac disease have found occipital epileptiform activity to be the most common, only one patient in this cohort had activity in that location, Dr. Swartwood noted.

Patients with intractable seizures who adhered to a gluten-free diet “had a fairly robust response in terms of seizure improvement,” she said. Seizure improvement, including a decrease in seizure frequency or a decrease in antiepileptic medication dosage, occurred in seven of nine patients in the biopsy-proven group and in two of three patients in the antibody-positive group who adhered to a gluten-free diet and had intractable seizures. One patient was able to stop antiepileptic medication, and one patient had a complete resolution of seizure activity.

The researchers plan to further study the relationship between celiac disease and epilepsy, including whether various HLA subtypes of celiac disease correlate with seizures, said coinvestigator Cristina Trandafir, MD, PhD, assistant professor of pediatric neurology at University of Utah.

The chart review included relatively few patients with limited data. Nevertheless, the results suggest that there may be “substantial lag time” from first seizure to celiac disease diagnosis and that “earlier diagnosis and earlier placement on a gluten-free diet may be beneficial,” Dr. Swartwood said. Celiac disease may be asymptomatic, and screening for celiac disease with a blood test may make sense for patients with intractable seizures, she said.

The researchers had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Swartwood S et al. CNS 2019. Abstract 63.

CHARLOTTE, NC – After a child undergoes epilepsy surgery, families may perceive a sustained improvement in the child’s behavior and cognition, regardless of whether the child is seizure-free, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. The presence of comorbidities such as mood disorders and autism may influence the likelihood of perceived improvement, whereas the type of surgery may not.

“The parents and the families of the patients perceive that, even if the patients are not completely seizure free, the behavior and cognitive outcomes are better if there is some sort of seizure improvement,” said Trishna Kantamneni, MD, director of pediatric epilepsy at UC Davis in Sacramento.

To assess behavioral and cognitive outcomes following pediatric epilepsy surgery and to identify factors that predict improvement, Dr. Kantamneni and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic Epilepsy Center retrospectively reviewed 126 patients younger than 18 years who underwent epilepsy surgery for medically refractory epilepsy during 2009-2016.

The primary outcome measure was the Impact of Childhood Neurologic Disability Scale (ICNDS), a parent-reported scale that assesses the behavior, cognition, and physical or neurologic disability of children with epilepsy. Parents completed the ICNDS preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The researchers constructed separate linear mixed effects models to identify predictors of postoperative changes in ICNDS score.

Of the 126 patients, 62.7% were male, the median duration of epilepsy was 4.7 years, and 69.8% were seizure-free at the 2-year follow-up. Postoperative ICNDS scores were available for 103 patients at 6 months and for 54 patients at 24 months.

Before surgery, the average total ICNDS score was 55.7. At 6 months after surgery, the average score was 34.6, and at 24 months, it was 32.1, representing significant improvement from baseline.

In addition, behavior, cognition, and epilepsy subscores also improved post operatively, and the improvement persisted through 24 months. ICNDS scores significantly improved “even in patients who were not seizure-free after surgery,” by an average of about 22 points, the researchers said.

The absence of comorbid autism, cognitive impairment, and global developmental impairment and the absence of anxiety, depression, and ADHD were predictors of improved total ICNDS scores. Tumor pathology and being seizure free at 2 years also predicted improved scores. Duration and type of epilepsy, the number of antiepileptic drugs that patients were taking before surgery, and lobe of surgery were not predictive of improved ICNDS scores.

Dr. Kantamneni had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kantamneni T et al. CNS 2019, Abstract 51.

CHARLOTTE, NC – After a child undergoes epilepsy surgery, families may perceive a sustained improvement in the child’s behavior and cognition, regardless of whether the child is seizure-free, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. The presence of comorbidities such as mood disorders and autism may influence the likelihood of perceived improvement, whereas the type of surgery may not.

“The parents and the families of the patients perceive that, even if the patients are not completely seizure free, the behavior and cognitive outcomes are better if there is some sort of seizure improvement,” said Trishna Kantamneni, MD, director of pediatric epilepsy at UC Davis in Sacramento.

To assess behavioral and cognitive outcomes following pediatric epilepsy surgery and to identify factors that predict improvement, Dr. Kantamneni and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic Epilepsy Center retrospectively reviewed 126 patients younger than 18 years who underwent epilepsy surgery for medically refractory epilepsy during 2009-2016.

The primary outcome measure was the Impact of Childhood Neurologic Disability Scale (ICNDS), a parent-reported scale that assesses the behavior, cognition, and physical or neurologic disability of children with epilepsy. Parents completed the ICNDS preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The researchers constructed separate linear mixed effects models to identify predictors of postoperative changes in ICNDS score.

Of the 126 patients, 62.7% were male, the median duration of epilepsy was 4.7 years, and 69.8% were seizure-free at the 2-year follow-up. Postoperative ICNDS scores were available for 103 patients at 6 months and for 54 patients at 24 months.

Before surgery, the average total ICNDS score was 55.7. At 6 months after surgery, the average score was 34.6, and at 24 months, it was 32.1, representing significant improvement from baseline.

In addition, behavior, cognition, and epilepsy subscores also improved post operatively, and the improvement persisted through 24 months. ICNDS scores significantly improved “even in patients who were not seizure-free after surgery,” by an average of about 22 points, the researchers said.

The absence of comorbid autism, cognitive impairment, and global developmental impairment and the absence of anxiety, depression, and ADHD were predictors of improved total ICNDS scores. Tumor pathology and being seizure free at 2 years also predicted improved scores. Duration and type of epilepsy, the number of antiepileptic drugs that patients were taking before surgery, and lobe of surgery were not predictive of improved ICNDS scores.

Dr. Kantamneni had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kantamneni T et al. CNS 2019, Abstract 51.

CHARLOTTE, NC – After a child undergoes epilepsy surgery, families may perceive a sustained improvement in the child’s behavior and cognition, regardless of whether the child is seizure-free, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. The presence of comorbidities such as mood disorders and autism may influence the likelihood of perceived improvement, whereas the type of surgery may not.

“The parents and the families of the patients perceive that, even if the patients are not completely seizure free, the behavior and cognitive outcomes are better if there is some sort of seizure improvement,” said Trishna Kantamneni, MD, director of pediatric epilepsy at UC Davis in Sacramento.

To assess behavioral and cognitive outcomes following pediatric epilepsy surgery and to identify factors that predict improvement, Dr. Kantamneni and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic Epilepsy Center retrospectively reviewed 126 patients younger than 18 years who underwent epilepsy surgery for medically refractory epilepsy during 2009-2016.

The primary outcome measure was the Impact of Childhood Neurologic Disability Scale (ICNDS), a parent-reported scale that assesses the behavior, cognition, and physical or neurologic disability of children with epilepsy. Parents completed the ICNDS preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The researchers constructed separate linear mixed effects models to identify predictors of postoperative changes in ICNDS score.

Of the 126 patients, 62.7% were male, the median duration of epilepsy was 4.7 years, and 69.8% were seizure-free at the 2-year follow-up. Postoperative ICNDS scores were available for 103 patients at 6 months and for 54 patients at 24 months.

Before surgery, the average total ICNDS score was 55.7. At 6 months after surgery, the average score was 34.6, and at 24 months, it was 32.1, representing significant improvement from baseline.

In addition, behavior, cognition, and epilepsy subscores also improved post operatively, and the improvement persisted through 24 months. ICNDS scores significantly improved “even in patients who were not seizure-free after surgery,” by an average of about 22 points, the researchers said.

The absence of comorbid autism, cognitive impairment, and global developmental impairment and the absence of anxiety, depression, and ADHD were predictors of improved total ICNDS scores. Tumor pathology and being seizure free at 2 years also predicted improved scores. Duration and type of epilepsy, the number of antiepileptic drugs that patients were taking before surgery, and lobe of surgery were not predictive of improved ICNDS scores.

Dr. Kantamneni had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kantamneni T et al. CNS 2019, Abstract 51.

CHARLOTTE, NC – The initiation of continuous EEG monitoring is delayed in children with refractory status epilepticus, according to a multicenter study that was presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Delays in initiating EEG monitoring are associated with longer seizure duration in this patient population.

Neurologists are advised to initiate continuous EEG monitoring rapidly for all cases of pediatric refractory status epilepticus. Little information is available, however, about patterns in the timing of EEG placement. In addition, the relationship between delays in the initiation of continuous EEG and outcomes of refractory status epilepticus are unknown. Dmitry Tchapyjnikov, MD, assistant professor of child neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and colleagues evaluated trends in the time to continuous EEG initiation and examined whether delays are associated with longer seizure duration in children with refractory status epilepticus.
 

A retrospective analysis of pSERG data

Dr. Tchapyjnikov and colleagues analyzed data from 11 hospitals participating in the Pediatric Status Epilepticus Research Group (pSERG), a prospective, observational cohort. They focused on pediatric patients who were admitted from 2011 to 2017 with refractory status epilepticus, which they defined as a seizure that persisted after treatment with two or more antiseizure medications (ASMs), one of which had to be a nonbenzodiazepine ASM, or a continuous infusion. Eligible patients were between 1 month and 21 years old and had convulsive seizures at onset. Patients who had EEG placement before seizure onset were excluded.

The investigators included in their study 121 patients who had seizure durations of 3 or more hours. Based on an exploratory analysis of various time-point cutoffs, Dr. Tchapyjnikov and colleagues defined delayed continuous EEG placement as placement at more than 5 hours after seizure onset. They used the Kaplan–Meier estimator to assess time to continuous EEG and used covariate-adjusted proportional hazards models to examine the association between delay in continuous EEG placement and seizure duration.
 

EEG placement overall was delayed

The median time to continuous EEG placement after seizure onset was 9 hours. Approximately 4% of the children had continuous EEG placed within 1 hour, and 74% had it placed within 24 hours.

The investigators found that seizure onset outside the study hospital was associated with a higher likelihood of delayed time to EEG placement. “Females seemed to be more likely to have timely EEG placement,” said Dr. Tchapyjnikov. “I don’t have a physiological explanation for that.” The researchers saw no difference in treatment between patients who had timely EEG placement and those who had delayed EEG placement.

About 68% of children were having seizures at the time of continuous EEG placement. A presumed seizure etiology of CNS infection was associated with a higher likelihood of being in status epilepticus at the time of EEG placement. A history of epilepsy, developmental delay, or home ASM use, however, was associated with a lower likelihood of being in status epilepticus at time of EEG placement.

Dr. Tchapyjnikov’s group found that the 24-hour cumulative probability of seizure resolution was lower among patients who did not have continuous EEG initiation within 5 hours, compared with those who did (56% vs.70%). The association remained significant after the investigators adjusted the data for covariates that were independently associated with 24-hour seizure resolution (hazard ratio, 0.31).

The investigators included in their analysis patients who had seizure resolution before EEG placement, because restricting the analysis to patients who have persistent status epilepticus would have overemphasized the benefits of EEG, according to Dr. Tchapyjnikov. “Looking at the overall hazard ratios is a more conservative way of looking at these data.”

The study was not supported by external funding. Dr. Tchapyjnikov had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tchapyjnikov D et al. CNS 2019. Abstract PL2-2.

CHARLOTTE, NC – The initiation of continuous EEG monitoring is delayed in children with refractory status epilepticus, according to a multicenter study that was presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Delays in initiating EEG monitoring are associated with longer seizure duration in this patient population.

Neurologists are advised to initiate continuous EEG monitoring rapidly for all cases of pediatric refractory status epilepticus. Little information is available, however, about patterns in the timing of EEG placement. In addition, the relationship between delays in the initiation of continuous EEG and outcomes of refractory status epilepticus are unknown. Dmitry Tchapyjnikov, MD, assistant professor of child neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and colleagues evaluated trends in the time to continuous EEG initiation and examined whether delays are associated with longer seizure duration in children with refractory status epilepticus.
 

A retrospective analysis of pSERG data

Dr. Tchapyjnikov and colleagues analyzed data from 11 hospitals participating in the Pediatric Status Epilepticus Research Group (pSERG), a prospective, observational cohort. They focused on pediatric patients who were admitted from 2011 to 2017 with refractory status epilepticus, which they defined as a seizure that persisted after treatment with two or more antiseizure medications (ASMs), one of which had to be a nonbenzodiazepine ASM, or a continuous infusion. Eligible patients were between 1 month and 21 years old and had convulsive seizures at onset. Patients who had EEG placement before seizure onset were excluded.

The investigators included in their study 121 patients who had seizure durations of 3 or more hours. Based on an exploratory analysis of various time-point cutoffs, Dr. Tchapyjnikov and colleagues defined delayed continuous EEG placement as placement at more than 5 hours after seizure onset. They used the Kaplan–Meier estimator to assess time to continuous EEG and used covariate-adjusted proportional hazards models to examine the association between delay in continuous EEG placement and seizure duration.
 

EEG placement overall was delayed

The median time to continuous EEG placement after seizure onset was 9 hours. Approximately 4% of the children had continuous EEG placed within 1 hour, and 74% had it placed within 24 hours.

The investigators found that seizure onset outside the study hospital was associated with a higher likelihood of delayed time to EEG placement. “Females seemed to be more likely to have timely EEG placement,” said Dr. Tchapyjnikov. “I don’t have a physiological explanation for that.” The researchers saw no difference in treatment between patients who had timely EEG placement and those who had delayed EEG placement.

About 68% of children were having seizures at the time of continuous EEG placement. A presumed seizure etiology of CNS infection was associated with a higher likelihood of being in status epilepticus at the time of EEG placement. A history of epilepsy, developmental delay, or home ASM use, however, was associated with a lower likelihood of being in status epilepticus at time of EEG placement.

Dr. Tchapyjnikov’s group found that the 24-hour cumulative probability of seizure resolution was lower among patients who did not have continuous EEG initiation within 5 hours, compared with those who did (56% vs.70%). The association remained significant after the investigators adjusted the data for covariates that were independently associated with 24-hour seizure resolution (hazard ratio, 0.31).

The investigators included in their analysis patients who had seizure resolution before EEG placement, because restricting the analysis to patients who have persistent status epilepticus would have overemphasized the benefits of EEG, according to Dr. Tchapyjnikov. “Looking at the overall hazard ratios is a more conservative way of looking at these data.”

The study was not supported by external funding. Dr. Tchapyjnikov had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tchapyjnikov D et al. CNS 2019. Abstract PL2-2.

CHARLOTTE, NC – The initiation of continuous EEG monitoring is delayed in children with refractory status epilepticus, according to a multicenter study that was presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Delays in initiating EEG monitoring are associated with longer seizure duration in this patient population.

Neurologists are advised to initiate continuous EEG monitoring rapidly for all cases of pediatric refractory status epilepticus. Little information is available, however, about patterns in the timing of EEG placement. In addition, the relationship between delays in the initiation of continuous EEG and outcomes of refractory status epilepticus are unknown. Dmitry Tchapyjnikov, MD, assistant professor of child neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and colleagues evaluated trends in the time to continuous EEG initiation and examined whether delays are associated with longer seizure duration in children with refractory status epilepticus.
 

A retrospective analysis of pSERG data

Dr. Tchapyjnikov and colleagues analyzed data from 11 hospitals participating in the Pediatric Status Epilepticus Research Group (pSERG), a prospective, observational cohort. They focused on pediatric patients who were admitted from 2011 to 2017 with refractory status epilepticus, which they defined as a seizure that persisted after treatment with two or more antiseizure medications (ASMs), one of which had to be a nonbenzodiazepine ASM, or a continuous infusion. Eligible patients were between 1 month and 21 years old and had convulsive seizures at onset. Patients who had EEG placement before seizure onset were excluded.

The investigators included in their study 121 patients who had seizure durations of 3 or more hours. Based on an exploratory analysis of various time-point cutoffs, Dr. Tchapyjnikov and colleagues defined delayed continuous EEG placement as placement at more than 5 hours after seizure onset. They used the Kaplan–Meier estimator to assess time to continuous EEG and used covariate-adjusted proportional hazards models to examine the association between delay in continuous EEG placement and seizure duration.
 

EEG placement overall was delayed

The median time to continuous EEG placement after seizure onset was 9 hours. Approximately 4% of the children had continuous EEG placed within 1 hour, and 74% had it placed within 24 hours.

The investigators found that seizure onset outside the study hospital was associated with a higher likelihood of delayed time to EEG placement. “Females seemed to be more likely to have timely EEG placement,” said Dr. Tchapyjnikov. “I don’t have a physiological explanation for that.” The researchers saw no difference in treatment between patients who had timely EEG placement and those who had delayed EEG placement.

About 68% of children were having seizures at the time of continuous EEG placement. A presumed seizure etiology of CNS infection was associated with a higher likelihood of being in status epilepticus at the time of EEG placement. A history of epilepsy, developmental delay, or home ASM use, however, was associated with a lower likelihood of being in status epilepticus at time of EEG placement.

Dr. Tchapyjnikov’s group found that the 24-hour cumulative probability of seizure resolution was lower among patients who did not have continuous EEG initiation within 5 hours, compared with those who did (56% vs.70%). The association remained significant after the investigators adjusted the data for covariates that were independently associated with 24-hour seizure resolution (hazard ratio, 0.31).

The investigators included in their analysis patients who had seizure resolution before EEG placement, because restricting the analysis to patients who have persistent status epilepticus would have overemphasized the benefits of EEG, according to Dr. Tchapyjnikov. “Looking at the overall hazard ratios is a more conservative way of looking at these data.”

The study was not supported by external funding. Dr. Tchapyjnikov had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tchapyjnikov D et al. CNS 2019. Abstract PL2-2.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued coding guidance to help track e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI).

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

The purpose of the coding guidelines “is to provide official diagnosis coding guidance for healthcare encounters related to the 2019 health care encounters and deaths related to” EVALI, CDC stated in a document detailing the coding update. The document was posted on the CDC website. The guidance is consistent with current clinical knowledge about e-cigarette, or vaping, related disorders.

CDC noted in the document that the guidance “is intended to be used in conjunction with current ICD-10-CM classification,” and the codes provided “are intended to provide e-cigarette, or vaping, product use coding guidance only.”

The codes are intended to track a number of areas related to EVALI, including lung-related complications, poisoning and toxicity, and substance use, abuse, and dependence.

The following conditions associated with EVALI are covered in the new coding guidance:

• Bronchitis and pneumonitis caused by chemicals, gases, and fumes.
• Bronchitis and pneumonitis caused by chemicals, gases, fumes, and vapors; includes chemical pneumonitis.
• Pneumonitis caused by inhalation of oils and essences; includes lipoid pneumonia.
• Acute respiratory distress syndrome.
• Pulmonary eosinophilia, not elsewhere classified.
• Acute interstitial pneumonitis.

The document notes that the coding guidance has been approved by the National Center for Health Statistics, the American Health Information Management Association, the American Hospital Association, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

[email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued coding guidance to help track e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI).

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

The purpose of the coding guidelines “is to provide official diagnosis coding guidance for healthcare encounters related to the 2019 health care encounters and deaths related to” EVALI, CDC stated in a document detailing the coding update. The document was posted on the CDC website. The guidance is consistent with current clinical knowledge about e-cigarette, or vaping, related disorders.

CDC noted in the document that the guidance “is intended to be used in conjunction with current ICD-10-CM classification,” and the codes provided “are intended to provide e-cigarette, or vaping, product use coding guidance only.”

The codes are intended to track a number of areas related to EVALI, including lung-related complications, poisoning and toxicity, and substance use, abuse, and dependence.

The following conditions associated with EVALI are covered in the new coding guidance:

• Bronchitis and pneumonitis caused by chemicals, gases, and fumes.
• Bronchitis and pneumonitis caused by chemicals, gases, fumes, and vapors; includes chemical pneumonitis.
• Pneumonitis caused by inhalation of oils and essences; includes lipoid pneumonia.
• Acute respiratory distress syndrome.
• Pulmonary eosinophilia, not elsewhere classified.
• Acute interstitial pneumonitis.

The document notes that the coding guidance has been approved by the National Center for Health Statistics, the American Health Information Management Association, the American Hospital Association, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

[email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued coding guidance to help track e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI).

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

The purpose of the coding guidelines “is to provide official diagnosis coding guidance for healthcare encounters related to the 2019 health care encounters and deaths related to” EVALI, CDC stated in a document detailing the coding update. The document was posted on the CDC website. The guidance is consistent with current clinical knowledge about e-cigarette, or vaping, related disorders.

CDC noted in the document that the guidance “is intended to be used in conjunction with current ICD-10-CM classification,” and the codes provided “are intended to provide e-cigarette, or vaping, product use coding guidance only.”

The codes are intended to track a number of areas related to EVALI, including lung-related complications, poisoning and toxicity, and substance use, abuse, and dependence.

The following conditions associated with EVALI are covered in the new coding guidance:

• Bronchitis and pneumonitis caused by chemicals, gases, and fumes.
• Bronchitis and pneumonitis caused by chemicals, gases, fumes, and vapors; includes chemical pneumonitis.
• Pneumonitis caused by inhalation of oils and essences; includes lipoid pneumonia.
• Acute respiratory distress syndrome.
• Pulmonary eosinophilia, not elsewhere classified.
• Acute interstitial pneumonitis.

The document notes that the coding guidance has been approved by the National Center for Health Statistics, the American Health Information Management Association, the American Hospital Association, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

[email protected]

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Among children with brain tumors, prophylaxis with an antiepileptic drug (AED) is associated with a longer time between brain tumor diagnosis and first seizure diagnosis within the first 6 months of follow-up, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, and phenytoin are the most common initial prophylactic AEDs administered to children with brain tumors, the researchers said.

The literature indicates that between 20% and 35% of children with brain tumors have seizures, and up to half of these patients have seizure as their presenting symptom. Common practice is to prescribe antiseizure medication after a child has had a first seizure, because the risk for recurrence is high. In 2000, the American Academy of Neurology discouraged prophylactic use of AEDs in children, citing a lack of evidence for efficacy. Most of the data that it reviewed, however, came from adults.

Michelle Yun, a medical student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, and colleagues used national Medicaid claims data that had been collected between 2009 and 2012 for children with seizures to conduct a retrospective, observational, case-control study. They included children aged 0-20 years with a diagnosis of brain tumor, a seizure diagnosis within 6 months after brain tumor diagnosis, an AED prescription, and 12 continuous months of Medicaid coverage following brain tumor diagnosis in their analysis. The investigators defined seizure prophylaxis as AED prescription within 30 days after brain tumor diagnosis but before a first seizure diagnosis.

The exposure in the study was AED prescription within 45 days of diagnosis, and the outcome was the time to first seizure. Ms. Yun and colleagues also analyzed the most common initial prophylactic AEDs and the proportion of cases with first seizure diagnosis after prophylactic AED discontinuation, which was defined as a treatment gap longer than 30 days. The study covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, and medical comorbidities.

In all, 218 children were included in the study; 40 received AED prophylaxis and 26 received it within 45 days of brain tumor diagnosis. Patients with and without AED prophylaxis were well matched on all covariates.

At 1 year, Ms. Yun and colleagues saw no difference in time to first seizure between the two groups. The median time to first seizure was 75 days in the prophylaxis group and 80 days in the no-prophylaxis group. The researchers observed a transient separation between the two groups, however, in the early months after brain tumor diagnosis. When they examined children who had a seizure during the first 6 months of follow-up, the median time to diagnosis of first seizure was 68 days in children with prophylaxis and 34 days in the no-prophylaxis group. The difference between groups was statistically significant. “When we added all the covariates of interest, we found that there was a protective effect in these children with early seizures,” said Ms. Yun.

Among the study limitations that Ms. Yun acknowledged were its observational, retrospective design and its small sample size. Medicaid data themselves are limited, since states do not report them in a uniform manner, and the data do not include much clinical information. “Something that would be helpful is a prospective clinical study,” Ms. Yun concluded.

The Weill Cornell Clinical and Translational Science Center and the American Academy of Neurology provided funding for the study. The Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation provided the Medicaid data. Ms. Yun had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yun M et al. CNS 2019, Abstract PL2-1.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Among children with brain tumors, prophylaxis with an antiepileptic drug (AED) is associated with a longer time between brain tumor diagnosis and first seizure diagnosis within the first 6 months of follow-up, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, and phenytoin are the most common initial prophylactic AEDs administered to children with brain tumors, the researchers said.

The literature indicates that between 20% and 35% of children with brain tumors have seizures, and up to half of these patients have seizure as their presenting symptom. Common practice is to prescribe antiseizure medication after a child has had a first seizure, because the risk for recurrence is high. In 2000, the American Academy of Neurology discouraged prophylactic use of AEDs in children, citing a lack of evidence for efficacy. Most of the data that it reviewed, however, came from adults.

Michelle Yun, a medical student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, and colleagues used national Medicaid claims data that had been collected between 2009 and 2012 for children with seizures to conduct a retrospective, observational, case-control study. They included children aged 0-20 years with a diagnosis of brain tumor, a seizure diagnosis within 6 months after brain tumor diagnosis, an AED prescription, and 12 continuous months of Medicaid coverage following brain tumor diagnosis in their analysis. The investigators defined seizure prophylaxis as AED prescription within 30 days after brain tumor diagnosis but before a first seizure diagnosis.

The exposure in the study was AED prescription within 45 days of diagnosis, and the outcome was the time to first seizure. Ms. Yun and colleagues also analyzed the most common initial prophylactic AEDs and the proportion of cases with first seizure diagnosis after prophylactic AED discontinuation, which was defined as a treatment gap longer than 30 days. The study covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, and medical comorbidities.

In all, 218 children were included in the study; 40 received AED prophylaxis and 26 received it within 45 days of brain tumor diagnosis. Patients with and without AED prophylaxis were well matched on all covariates.

At 1 year, Ms. Yun and colleagues saw no difference in time to first seizure between the two groups. The median time to first seizure was 75 days in the prophylaxis group and 80 days in the no-prophylaxis group. The researchers observed a transient separation between the two groups, however, in the early months after brain tumor diagnosis. When they examined children who had a seizure during the first 6 months of follow-up, the median time to diagnosis of first seizure was 68 days in children with prophylaxis and 34 days in the no-prophylaxis group. The difference between groups was statistically significant. “When we added all the covariates of interest, we found that there was a protective effect in these children with early seizures,” said Ms. Yun.

Among the study limitations that Ms. Yun acknowledged were its observational, retrospective design and its small sample size. Medicaid data themselves are limited, since states do not report them in a uniform manner, and the data do not include much clinical information. “Something that would be helpful is a prospective clinical study,” Ms. Yun concluded.

The Weill Cornell Clinical and Translational Science Center and the American Academy of Neurology provided funding for the study. The Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation provided the Medicaid data. Ms. Yun had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yun M et al. CNS 2019, Abstract PL2-1.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Among children with brain tumors, prophylaxis with an antiepileptic drug (AED) is associated with a longer time between brain tumor diagnosis and first seizure diagnosis within the first 6 months of follow-up, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, and phenytoin are the most common initial prophylactic AEDs administered to children with brain tumors, the researchers said.

The literature indicates that between 20% and 35% of children with brain tumors have seizures, and up to half of these patients have seizure as their presenting symptom. Common practice is to prescribe antiseizure medication after a child has had a first seizure, because the risk for recurrence is high. In 2000, the American Academy of Neurology discouraged prophylactic use of AEDs in children, citing a lack of evidence for efficacy. Most of the data that it reviewed, however, came from adults.

Michelle Yun, a medical student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, and colleagues used national Medicaid claims data that had been collected between 2009 and 2012 for children with seizures to conduct a retrospective, observational, case-control study. They included children aged 0-20 years with a diagnosis of brain tumor, a seizure diagnosis within 6 months after brain tumor diagnosis, an AED prescription, and 12 continuous months of Medicaid coverage following brain tumor diagnosis in their analysis. The investigators defined seizure prophylaxis as AED prescription within 30 days after brain tumor diagnosis but before a first seizure diagnosis.

The exposure in the study was AED prescription within 45 days of diagnosis, and the outcome was the time to first seizure. Ms. Yun and colleagues also analyzed the most common initial prophylactic AEDs and the proportion of cases with first seizure diagnosis after prophylactic AED discontinuation, which was defined as a treatment gap longer than 30 days. The study covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, and medical comorbidities.

In all, 218 children were included in the study; 40 received AED prophylaxis and 26 received it within 45 days of brain tumor diagnosis. Patients with and without AED prophylaxis were well matched on all covariates.

At 1 year, Ms. Yun and colleagues saw no difference in time to first seizure between the two groups. The median time to first seizure was 75 days in the prophylaxis group and 80 days in the no-prophylaxis group. The researchers observed a transient separation between the two groups, however, in the early months after brain tumor diagnosis. When they examined children who had a seizure during the first 6 months of follow-up, the median time to diagnosis of first seizure was 68 days in children with prophylaxis and 34 days in the no-prophylaxis group. The difference between groups was statistically significant. “When we added all the covariates of interest, we found that there was a protective effect in these children with early seizures,” said Ms. Yun.

Among the study limitations that Ms. Yun acknowledged were its observational, retrospective design and its small sample size. Medicaid data themselves are limited, since states do not report them in a uniform manner, and the data do not include much clinical information. “Something that would be helpful is a prospective clinical study,” Ms. Yun concluded.

The Weill Cornell Clinical and Translational Science Center and the American Academy of Neurology provided funding for the study. The Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation provided the Medicaid data. Ms. Yun had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yun M et al. CNS 2019, Abstract PL2-1.

A new study has indicated that tailoring dosage of infliximab based on serum levels of tumor necrosis factor–alpha did not increase the sustained remission rate in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

“The results did not support our initial hypothesis that deep remission and subsequent sustained discontinuation of infliximab can be achieved by intensive and finely tuned treatments with appropriate doses of TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors,” wrote Yoshiya Tanaka, MD, PhD, of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

To determine if levels of TNF-alpha should initiate an increase in infliximab dosage, the researchers launched a multicenter, randomized trial of 337 patients with infliximab-naive RA. Patients were assigned to two groups: standard infliximab treatment of 3 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, and then every 8 weeks (n = 167) or programmed infliximab treatment (n = 170) in which the dose was adjusted at week 14 based on low, intermediate, or high levels of baseline TNF-alpha.

Patients with low levels (below 0.55 pg/mL) continued receiving 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks. Intermediate levels (between 0.55 and 1.65 pg/mL) meant an increase to 6 mg/kg every 8 weeks. High levels (1.65 pg/mL or higher) meant an increase to 6 mg/kg at week 14 and to 10 mg/kg at week 22 and every 8 weeks afterward. The goal was to discontinue infliximab at 54 weeks and reassess 1 year later.

After 54 weeks, 39.4% of patients in the programmed group and 32.3% of patients in the standard group achieved remission, defined as a Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score of 3.3 or lower. After 106 weeks, 23.5% of the programmed group and 21.6% of the standard group had maintained discontinuation of infliximab (–2.2% difference; 95% confidence interval, –6.6% to 11.0%; P = .631). After analysis, the most significant predictor of sustained discontinuation was a baseline SDAI less than 26.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the initial version of the study not being double blinded. In addition, they noted that the short length of treatment and the low dosage overall “might not be intense enough to achieve differences in disease control between the two groups.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from various medical and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Tanaka Y et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 19. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216169.

A new study has indicated that tailoring dosage of infliximab based on serum levels of tumor necrosis factor–alpha did not increase the sustained remission rate in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

“The results did not support our initial hypothesis that deep remission and subsequent sustained discontinuation of infliximab can be achieved by intensive and finely tuned treatments with appropriate doses of TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors,” wrote Yoshiya Tanaka, MD, PhD, of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

To determine if levels of TNF-alpha should initiate an increase in infliximab dosage, the researchers launched a multicenter, randomized trial of 337 patients with infliximab-naive RA. Patients were assigned to two groups: standard infliximab treatment of 3 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, and then every 8 weeks (n = 167) or programmed infliximab treatment (n = 170) in which the dose was adjusted at week 14 based on low, intermediate, or high levels of baseline TNF-alpha.

Patients with low levels (below 0.55 pg/mL) continued receiving 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks. Intermediate levels (between 0.55 and 1.65 pg/mL) meant an increase to 6 mg/kg every 8 weeks. High levels (1.65 pg/mL or higher) meant an increase to 6 mg/kg at week 14 and to 10 mg/kg at week 22 and every 8 weeks afterward. The goal was to discontinue infliximab at 54 weeks and reassess 1 year later.

After 54 weeks, 39.4% of patients in the programmed group and 32.3% of patients in the standard group achieved remission, defined as a Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score of 3.3 or lower. After 106 weeks, 23.5% of the programmed group and 21.6% of the standard group had maintained discontinuation of infliximab (–2.2% difference; 95% confidence interval, –6.6% to 11.0%; P = .631). After analysis, the most significant predictor of sustained discontinuation was a baseline SDAI less than 26.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the initial version of the study not being double blinded. In addition, they noted that the short length of treatment and the low dosage overall “might not be intense enough to achieve differences in disease control between the two groups.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from various medical and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Tanaka Y et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 19. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216169.

A new study has indicated that tailoring dosage of infliximab based on serum levels of tumor necrosis factor–alpha did not increase the sustained remission rate in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

“The results did not support our initial hypothesis that deep remission and subsequent sustained discontinuation of infliximab can be achieved by intensive and finely tuned treatments with appropriate doses of TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors,” wrote Yoshiya Tanaka, MD, PhD, of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

To determine if levels of TNF-alpha should initiate an increase in infliximab dosage, the researchers launched a multicenter, randomized trial of 337 patients with infliximab-naive RA. Patients were assigned to two groups: standard infliximab treatment of 3 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, and then every 8 weeks (n = 167) or programmed infliximab treatment (n = 170) in which the dose was adjusted at week 14 based on low, intermediate, or high levels of baseline TNF-alpha.

Patients with low levels (below 0.55 pg/mL) continued receiving 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks. Intermediate levels (between 0.55 and 1.65 pg/mL) meant an increase to 6 mg/kg every 8 weeks. High levels (1.65 pg/mL or higher) meant an increase to 6 mg/kg at week 14 and to 10 mg/kg at week 22 and every 8 weeks afterward. The goal was to discontinue infliximab at 54 weeks and reassess 1 year later.

After 54 weeks, 39.4% of patients in the programmed group and 32.3% of patients in the standard group achieved remission, defined as a Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score of 3.3 or lower. After 106 weeks, 23.5% of the programmed group and 21.6% of the standard group had maintained discontinuation of infliximab (–2.2% difference; 95% confidence interval, –6.6% to 11.0%; P = .631). After analysis, the most significant predictor of sustained discontinuation was a baseline SDAI less than 26.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the initial version of the study not being double blinded. In addition, they noted that the short length of treatment and the low dosage overall “might not be intense enough to achieve differences in disease control between the two groups.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from various medical and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Tanaka Y et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 19. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216169.

In the wake of Biogen and Eisai’s Oct. 22 announcement about plans to apply to the Food and Drug Administration next year for the regulatory approval of the investigational monoclonal antibody aducanumab as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, we spoke with Paul Aisen, MD, the founding director of the Alzheimer’s Therapy Research Institute at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, for his views on the news. He has been a consultant for Biogen and is a member of the aducanumab steering committee.

Q: What was your first reaction when you heard about the plan to submit an application for aducanumab to the FDA?

A: My initial reaction is that this provides terrific support for the amyloid hypothesis, and is consistent with the early aducanumab studies showing significant reductions in brain amyloid with resulting clinical improvement.

My next thought was that these data are going to be very, very challenging to analyze because both of these trials were stopped early, and one was clearly negative. We really need to scrutinize the data, but even at this point I would say this strongly supports targeting amyloid. The scrutiny will begin in detail at the Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease conference in December, when Biogen will likely release detailed data. A lot of people will analyze it, and I think that’s great. It’s beneficial to bring different perspectives.

We have had a terribly frustrating series of disappointments in the field. After the futility analysis of aducanumab and the multiple failures of BACE [beta-secretase] inhibitors, many were convinced we were barking up the wrong tree. I think these results, although complicated, should resurrect the enthusiasm for targeting amyloid.
 

Q: What is different about aducanumab from other antibodies tested – and rejected – in Alzheimer’s drug development?

A: There are lots of antibodies that have been tested in clinical trials. They all differ in terms of their affinity for amyloid beta. Some target monomers of the protein. Some target dimers. Some target fibrils. Some tie up amyloid and some reduce it. Aducanumab directly attacks brain plaques, reducing the plaque load in the brain. It carries a liability of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities [ARIA], but it also allows us to assess the impact that removing plaques might have on downstream events, including biomarkers. Overall, these data show that aducanumab did remove brain plaques and that removing them had a beneficial effect on cognition and function, and also a favorable effect on downstream biomarkers.

But again, we must be cautious because this is a complex data set taken from a post hoc analysis of two different terminated trials.
 

Q: We see some statistically significant differences in cognitive and functional outcomes. What would that mean for patients on an everyday basis?

A: Well, everyone is different, so that’s hard to say. A 25% slowing of functional decline on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (CDR-SB) might mean that, at the end of a year, there’s not a significant change in memory, or that there’s better social function. If both trials had been completed and if people had 18 months of high-dose aducanumab, the slowing of functional decline on the CDR-SB might in fact be greater than reported. Again, we’re having to draw conclusions from interrupted trials.
 

Q: This suggestion you make of a potentially continuous slowing of decline – are you suggesting that aducanumab might slow decline to the point of stopping it altogether? If an elderly patient has little or no progression until death would that, in effect, be considered a “cure?”

A: I don’t think it is possible to cure AD once the disease is clinically evident. These are studies of people with early AD, late mild cognitive impairment, and mild dementia. At that stage, there’s already a loss of synapses that won’t come back, and these studies don’t suggest that aducanumab can cure that. But what if people took it earlier, when the brain is still functioning normally? Some of us have argued for many years that earlier intervention is the way to go. And since we can now identify people [with brain plaques] before they become symptomatic, there is the possibility that if we removed them, we could stop progression.

Q: Are there any plans to study aducanumab as a preventive agent?

A: A grant has been awarded for this, but it was put on hold after the futility analysis. I don’t know when or if that will go forward.

(Editor’s note: The National Institutes of Health previously awarded Banner Health a $32 million, 5-year grant to examine this. The 2-year prevention study of aducanumab is aimed at cognitively unimpaired 65- to 80-year-old patients with PET-confirmed amyloid brain plaques. It was to be a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using Alzheimer’s biomarker endpoints as primary outcomes, along with cognitive and clinical changes, safety, and tolerability. The study was put on hold after Biogen discontinued the aducanumab development program in March. Investigators are considering whether to resurrect plans considering the new data. The study is intended to be a public-private partnership, with additional unspecified funding from Biogen plus $10 million from philanthropic sources. It has three intended goals: To find an approved prevention therapy as early as 2023, ahead of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease’s goal of an effective prevention strategy by 2025; to advance the use of surrogate biomarkers to rapidly test and support accelerated approval of prevention therapies in almost everyone at biomarker or genetic risk, even in earlier preclinical Alzheimer’s stages when some treatments may have their greatest benefit; and to help make it possible to conduct prevention trials in at-risk persons even before they have extensive amyloid plaques, when some treatments may have their greatest benefit.)
 

Q: It seems like rolling this out to an enormous population of patients is going to be difficult, if not impossible. Are people really going to be able to commit to what could be a lifetime of monthly intravenous infusions of a medicine that could be expensive, as therapeutic antibodies generally are?

A: I would say, nothing about this disease is easy. It’s devastating and horrible. And if someone is diagnosed at this stage, I would think that individual would embrace any opportunity to treat it. My hope is that we will be able to prescreen people with an effective blood test for amyloid that would be part of a regular testing protocol once they reach a certain age. Those with positive results would be referred for more testing, including amyloid brain imaging.

In the wake of Biogen and Eisai’s Oct. 22 announcement about plans to apply to the Food and Drug Administration next year for the regulatory approval of the investigational monoclonal antibody aducanumab as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, we spoke with Paul Aisen, MD, the founding director of the Alzheimer’s Therapy Research Institute at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, for his views on the news. He has been a consultant for Biogen and is a member of the aducanumab steering committee.

Q: What was your first reaction when you heard about the plan to submit an application for aducanumab to the FDA?

A: My initial reaction is that this provides terrific support for the amyloid hypothesis, and is consistent with the early aducanumab studies showing significant reductions in brain amyloid with resulting clinical improvement.

My next thought was that these data are going to be very, very challenging to analyze because both of these trials were stopped early, and one was clearly negative. We really need to scrutinize the data, but even at this point I would say this strongly supports targeting amyloid. The scrutiny will begin in detail at the Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease conference in December, when Biogen will likely release detailed data. A lot of people will analyze it, and I think that’s great. It’s beneficial to bring different perspectives.

We have had a terribly frustrating series of disappointments in the field. After the futility analysis of aducanumab and the multiple failures of BACE [beta-secretase] inhibitors, many were convinced we were barking up the wrong tree. I think these results, although complicated, should resurrect the enthusiasm for targeting amyloid.
 

Q: What is different about aducanumab from other antibodies tested – and rejected – in Alzheimer’s drug development?

A: There are lots of antibodies that have been tested in clinical trials. They all differ in terms of their affinity for amyloid beta. Some target monomers of the protein. Some target dimers. Some target fibrils. Some tie up amyloid and some reduce it. Aducanumab directly attacks brain plaques, reducing the plaque load in the brain. It carries a liability of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities [ARIA], but it also allows us to assess the impact that removing plaques might have on downstream events, including biomarkers. Overall, these data show that aducanumab did remove brain plaques and that removing them had a beneficial effect on cognition and function, and also a favorable effect on downstream biomarkers.

But again, we must be cautious because this is a complex data set taken from a post hoc analysis of two different terminated trials.
 

Q: We see some statistically significant differences in cognitive and functional outcomes. What would that mean for patients on an everyday basis?

A: Well, everyone is different, so that’s hard to say. A 25% slowing of functional decline on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (CDR-SB) might mean that, at the end of a year, there’s not a significant change in memory, or that there’s better social function. If both trials had been completed and if people had 18 months of high-dose aducanumab, the slowing of functional decline on the CDR-SB might in fact be greater than reported. Again, we’re having to draw conclusions from interrupted trials.
 

Q: This suggestion you make of a potentially continuous slowing of decline – are you suggesting that aducanumab might slow decline to the point of stopping it altogether? If an elderly patient has little or no progression until death would that, in effect, be considered a “cure?”

A: I don’t think it is possible to cure AD once the disease is clinically evident. These are studies of people with early AD, late mild cognitive impairment, and mild dementia. At that stage, there’s already a loss of synapses that won’t come back, and these studies don’t suggest that aducanumab can cure that. But what if people took it earlier, when the brain is still functioning normally? Some of us have argued for many years that earlier intervention is the way to go. And since we can now identify people [with brain plaques] before they become symptomatic, there is the possibility that if we removed them, we could stop progression.

Q: Are there any plans to study aducanumab as a preventive agent?

A: A grant has been awarded for this, but it was put on hold after the futility analysis. I don’t know when or if that will go forward.

(Editor’s note: The National Institutes of Health previously awarded Banner Health a $32 million, 5-year grant to examine this. The 2-year prevention study of aducanumab is aimed at cognitively unimpaired 65- to 80-year-old patients with PET-confirmed amyloid brain plaques. It was to be a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using Alzheimer’s biomarker endpoints as primary outcomes, along with cognitive and clinical changes, safety, and tolerability. The study was put on hold after Biogen discontinued the aducanumab development program in March. Investigators are considering whether to resurrect plans considering the new data. The study is intended to be a public-private partnership, with additional unspecified funding from Biogen plus $10 million from philanthropic sources. It has three intended goals: To find an approved prevention therapy as early as 2023, ahead of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease’s goal of an effective prevention strategy by 2025; to advance the use of surrogate biomarkers to rapidly test and support accelerated approval of prevention therapies in almost everyone at biomarker or genetic risk, even in earlier preclinical Alzheimer’s stages when some treatments may have their greatest benefit; and to help make it possible to conduct prevention trials in at-risk persons even before they have extensive amyloid plaques, when some treatments may have their greatest benefit.)
 

Q: It seems like rolling this out to an enormous population of patients is going to be difficult, if not impossible. Are people really going to be able to commit to what could be a lifetime of monthly intravenous infusions of a medicine that could be expensive, as therapeutic antibodies generally are?

A: I would say, nothing about this disease is easy. It’s devastating and horrible. And if someone is diagnosed at this stage, I would think that individual would embrace any opportunity to treat it. My hope is that we will be able to prescreen people with an effective blood test for amyloid that would be part of a regular testing protocol once they reach a certain age. Those with positive results would be referred for more testing, including amyloid brain imaging.

In the wake of Biogen and Eisai’s Oct. 22 announcement about plans to apply to the Food and Drug Administration next year for the regulatory approval of the investigational monoclonal antibody aducanumab as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, we spoke with Paul Aisen, MD, the founding director of the Alzheimer’s Therapy Research Institute at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, for his views on the news. He has been a consultant for Biogen and is a member of the aducanumab steering committee.

Q: What was your first reaction when you heard about the plan to submit an application for aducanumab to the FDA?

A: My initial reaction is that this provides terrific support for the amyloid hypothesis, and is consistent with the early aducanumab studies showing significant reductions in brain amyloid with resulting clinical improvement.

My next thought was that these data are going to be very, very challenging to analyze because both of these trials were stopped early, and one was clearly negative. We really need to scrutinize the data, but even at this point I would say this strongly supports targeting amyloid. The scrutiny will begin in detail at the Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease conference in December, when Biogen will likely release detailed data. A lot of people will analyze it, and I think that’s great. It’s beneficial to bring different perspectives.

We have had a terribly frustrating series of disappointments in the field. After the futility analysis of aducanumab and the multiple failures of BACE [beta-secretase] inhibitors, many were convinced we were barking up the wrong tree. I think these results, although complicated, should resurrect the enthusiasm for targeting amyloid.
 

Q: What is different about aducanumab from other antibodies tested – and rejected – in Alzheimer’s drug development?

A: There are lots of antibodies that have been tested in clinical trials. They all differ in terms of their affinity for amyloid beta. Some target monomers of the protein. Some target dimers. Some target fibrils. Some tie up amyloid and some reduce it. Aducanumab directly attacks brain plaques, reducing the plaque load in the brain. It carries a liability of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities [ARIA], but it also allows us to assess the impact that removing plaques might have on downstream events, including biomarkers. Overall, these data show that aducanumab did remove brain plaques and that removing them had a beneficial effect on cognition and function, and also a favorable effect on downstream biomarkers.

But again, we must be cautious because this is a complex data set taken from a post hoc analysis of two different terminated trials.
 

Q: We see some statistically significant differences in cognitive and functional outcomes. What would that mean for patients on an everyday basis?

A: Well, everyone is different, so that’s hard to say. A 25% slowing of functional decline on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (CDR-SB) might mean that, at the end of a year, there’s not a significant change in memory, or that there’s better social function. If both trials had been completed and if people had 18 months of high-dose aducanumab, the slowing of functional decline on the CDR-SB might in fact be greater than reported. Again, we’re having to draw conclusions from interrupted trials.
 

Q: This suggestion you make of a potentially continuous slowing of decline – are you suggesting that aducanumab might slow decline to the point of stopping it altogether? If an elderly patient has little or no progression until death would that, in effect, be considered a “cure?”

A: I don’t think it is possible to cure AD once the disease is clinically evident. These are studies of people with early AD, late mild cognitive impairment, and mild dementia. At that stage, there’s already a loss of synapses that won’t come back, and these studies don’t suggest that aducanumab can cure that. But what if people took it earlier, when the brain is still functioning normally? Some of us have argued for many years that earlier intervention is the way to go. And since we can now identify people [with brain plaques] before they become symptomatic, there is the possibility that if we removed them, we could stop progression.

Q: Are there any plans to study aducanumab as a preventive agent?

A: A grant has been awarded for this, but it was put on hold after the futility analysis. I don’t know when or if that will go forward.

(Editor’s note: The National Institutes of Health previously awarded Banner Health a $32 million, 5-year grant to examine this. The 2-year prevention study of aducanumab is aimed at cognitively unimpaired 65- to 80-year-old patients with PET-confirmed amyloid brain plaques. It was to be a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using Alzheimer’s biomarker endpoints as primary outcomes, along with cognitive and clinical changes, safety, and tolerability. The study was put on hold after Biogen discontinued the aducanumab development program in March. Investigators are considering whether to resurrect plans considering the new data. The study is intended to be a public-private partnership, with additional unspecified funding from Biogen plus $10 million from philanthropic sources. It has three intended goals: To find an approved prevention therapy as early as 2023, ahead of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease’s goal of an effective prevention strategy by 2025; to advance the use of surrogate biomarkers to rapidly test and support accelerated approval of prevention therapies in almost everyone at biomarker or genetic risk, even in earlier preclinical Alzheimer’s stages when some treatments may have their greatest benefit; and to help make it possible to conduct prevention trials in at-risk persons even before they have extensive amyloid plaques, when some treatments may have their greatest benefit.)
 

Q: It seems like rolling this out to an enormous population of patients is going to be difficult, if not impossible. Are people really going to be able to commit to what could be a lifetime of monthly intravenous infusions of a medicine that could be expensive, as therapeutic antibodies generally are?

A: I would say, nothing about this disease is easy. It’s devastating and horrible. And if someone is diagnosed at this stage, I would think that individual would embrace any opportunity to treat it. My hope is that we will be able to prescreen people with an effective blood test for amyloid that would be part of a regular testing protocol once they reach a certain age. Those with positive results would be referred for more testing, including amyloid brain imaging.