User login
New blood test may detect preclinical Alzheimer’s years in advance
, early research suggests.
Analysis of two studies showed the test (AlzoSure Predict), which uses less than 1 ml of blood, had numerous benefits compared with other blood tests that track AD pathology.
“We believe this has the potential to radically improve early stratification and identification of patients for trials 6 years in advance of a diagnosis, which can potentially enable more rapid and efficient approvals of therapies,” Paul Kinnon, CEO of Diadem, the test’s manufacturer, said in an interview.
The findings were presented at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
Positive “discovery” results
P53, which is present in both the brain and elsewhere in the body, “is one of the most targeted proteins” for drug development in cancer and other conditions, said Mr. Kinnon.
The current blood test measures a derivative of P53 (U-p53AZ). Previous research suggests this derivative, which affects amyloid and oxidative stress, is also implicated in AD pathogenesis.
Researchers used blood samples from patients aged 60 years and older from the Australia Imaging, Biomarkers, and Lifestyles (AIBL) study who had various levels of cognitive function.
They analyzed samples at multiple timepoints over a 10-year period, “so we know when the marker is most accurate at predicting decline,” Mr. Kinnon said.
The first of two studies was considered a “discovery” study and included blood samples from 224 patients.
Results showed the test predicted decline from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to AD at the end of 6 years, with an area under the curve (AUC) greater than 90%.
These results are “massive,” said Mr. Kinnon. “It’s the most accurate test I’ve seen anywhere for predicting decline of a patient.”
The test can also accurately classify a patient’s stage of cognition, he added. “Not only does it allow us to predict 6 years in advance, it also tells us if the patient has SMC [subjective memory complaints], MCI, or AD with a 95% certainty,” Mr. Kinnon said.
He noted that test sensitivity was higher than results found from traditional methods that are currently being used. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), which were at 90% or more, were “absolutely fantastic,” said Mr. Kinnon.
“Better than expected” results
In the second “validation” study, investigators examined samples from a completely different group of 482 patients. The “very compelling” results showed AUCs over 90%, PPVs over 90%, and “very high” NPVs, Mr. Kinnon said.
“These are great data, better than we expected,” he added.
However, he noted the test is “very specific” for decline to AD and not to other dementias.
In addition, Mr. Kinnon noted the test does not monitor levels of amyloid beta or tau, which accumulate at a later stage of AD. “Amyloid and tau tell you you’ve got it. We’re there way before those concentrations become detectable,” he said.
Identifying patients who will progress to AD years before they have symptoms gives them time to make medical decisions. These patients may also try treatments at an earlier stage of the disease, when these therapies are most likely to be helpful, said Mr. Kinnon.
In addition, using the test could speed up the approval of prospective drug treatments for AD. Currently, pharmaceutical companies enroll thousands of patients into a clinical study “and they don’t know which ones will have AD,” Mr. Kinnon noted.
“This test tells you these are the ones who are going to progress and should go into the study, and these are the ones that aren’t. So it makes the studies statistically relevant and accurate,” he said.
Investigators can also use the test to monitor patients during a study instead of relying on expensive PET scans and painful and costly spinal fluid taps, he added.
Previous surveys and market research have shown that neurologists and general practitioners “want a blood test to screen patients early, to help educate and inform patients,” said Mr. Kinnon.
Further results that will include biobank data on more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe are due for completion toward the end of this year.
The company is currently in negotiations to bring the product to North America, Europe, and elsewhere. “Our goal is to have it on the market by the middle of next year in multiple regions,” Mr. Kinnon said.
Encouraging, preliminary
Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, MSc, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said “it’s exciting” to see development of novel ways for detecting or predicting AD.
“There is an urgent need for simple, inexpensive, noninvasive, and accessible early detection tools for Alzheimer’s, such as a blood test,” he said.
However, Dr. Griffin cautioned the test is still in the early stages of development and has not been tested extensively in large, diverse clinical trials.
In addition, although the test predicts whether a person will progress, it does not predict when the person will progress, he added.
“These preliminary results are encouraging, but further validation is needed before this test can be implemented widely,” he said.
Technologies that facilitate the early detection and intervention before significant loss of brain cells from AD “would be game-changing” for individuals, families, and the healthcare system, Dr. Griffin concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, early research suggests.
Analysis of two studies showed the test (AlzoSure Predict), which uses less than 1 ml of blood, had numerous benefits compared with other blood tests that track AD pathology.
“We believe this has the potential to radically improve early stratification and identification of patients for trials 6 years in advance of a diagnosis, which can potentially enable more rapid and efficient approvals of therapies,” Paul Kinnon, CEO of Diadem, the test’s manufacturer, said in an interview.
The findings were presented at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
Positive “discovery” results
P53, which is present in both the brain and elsewhere in the body, “is one of the most targeted proteins” for drug development in cancer and other conditions, said Mr. Kinnon.
The current blood test measures a derivative of P53 (U-p53AZ). Previous research suggests this derivative, which affects amyloid and oxidative stress, is also implicated in AD pathogenesis.
Researchers used blood samples from patients aged 60 years and older from the Australia Imaging, Biomarkers, and Lifestyles (AIBL) study who had various levels of cognitive function.
They analyzed samples at multiple timepoints over a 10-year period, “so we know when the marker is most accurate at predicting decline,” Mr. Kinnon said.
The first of two studies was considered a “discovery” study and included blood samples from 224 patients.
Results showed the test predicted decline from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to AD at the end of 6 years, with an area under the curve (AUC) greater than 90%.
These results are “massive,” said Mr. Kinnon. “It’s the most accurate test I’ve seen anywhere for predicting decline of a patient.”
The test can also accurately classify a patient’s stage of cognition, he added. “Not only does it allow us to predict 6 years in advance, it also tells us if the patient has SMC [subjective memory complaints], MCI, or AD with a 95% certainty,” Mr. Kinnon said.
He noted that test sensitivity was higher than results found from traditional methods that are currently being used. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), which were at 90% or more, were “absolutely fantastic,” said Mr. Kinnon.
“Better than expected” results
In the second “validation” study, investigators examined samples from a completely different group of 482 patients. The “very compelling” results showed AUCs over 90%, PPVs over 90%, and “very high” NPVs, Mr. Kinnon said.
“These are great data, better than we expected,” he added.
However, he noted the test is “very specific” for decline to AD and not to other dementias.
In addition, Mr. Kinnon noted the test does not monitor levels of amyloid beta or tau, which accumulate at a later stage of AD. “Amyloid and tau tell you you’ve got it. We’re there way before those concentrations become detectable,” he said.
Identifying patients who will progress to AD years before they have symptoms gives them time to make medical decisions. These patients may also try treatments at an earlier stage of the disease, when these therapies are most likely to be helpful, said Mr. Kinnon.
In addition, using the test could speed up the approval of prospective drug treatments for AD. Currently, pharmaceutical companies enroll thousands of patients into a clinical study “and they don’t know which ones will have AD,” Mr. Kinnon noted.
“This test tells you these are the ones who are going to progress and should go into the study, and these are the ones that aren’t. So it makes the studies statistically relevant and accurate,” he said.
Investigators can also use the test to monitor patients during a study instead of relying on expensive PET scans and painful and costly spinal fluid taps, he added.
Previous surveys and market research have shown that neurologists and general practitioners “want a blood test to screen patients early, to help educate and inform patients,” said Mr. Kinnon.
Further results that will include biobank data on more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe are due for completion toward the end of this year.
The company is currently in negotiations to bring the product to North America, Europe, and elsewhere. “Our goal is to have it on the market by the middle of next year in multiple regions,” Mr. Kinnon said.
Encouraging, preliminary
Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, MSc, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said “it’s exciting” to see development of novel ways for detecting or predicting AD.
“There is an urgent need for simple, inexpensive, noninvasive, and accessible early detection tools for Alzheimer’s, such as a blood test,” he said.
However, Dr. Griffin cautioned the test is still in the early stages of development and has not been tested extensively in large, diverse clinical trials.
In addition, although the test predicts whether a person will progress, it does not predict when the person will progress, he added.
“These preliminary results are encouraging, but further validation is needed before this test can be implemented widely,” he said.
Technologies that facilitate the early detection and intervention before significant loss of brain cells from AD “would be game-changing” for individuals, families, and the healthcare system, Dr. Griffin concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, early research suggests.
Analysis of two studies showed the test (AlzoSure Predict), which uses less than 1 ml of blood, had numerous benefits compared with other blood tests that track AD pathology.
“We believe this has the potential to radically improve early stratification and identification of patients for trials 6 years in advance of a diagnosis, which can potentially enable more rapid and efficient approvals of therapies,” Paul Kinnon, CEO of Diadem, the test’s manufacturer, said in an interview.
The findings were presented at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
Positive “discovery” results
P53, which is present in both the brain and elsewhere in the body, “is one of the most targeted proteins” for drug development in cancer and other conditions, said Mr. Kinnon.
The current blood test measures a derivative of P53 (U-p53AZ). Previous research suggests this derivative, which affects amyloid and oxidative stress, is also implicated in AD pathogenesis.
Researchers used blood samples from patients aged 60 years and older from the Australia Imaging, Biomarkers, and Lifestyles (AIBL) study who had various levels of cognitive function.
They analyzed samples at multiple timepoints over a 10-year period, “so we know when the marker is most accurate at predicting decline,” Mr. Kinnon said.
The first of two studies was considered a “discovery” study and included blood samples from 224 patients.
Results showed the test predicted decline from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to AD at the end of 6 years, with an area under the curve (AUC) greater than 90%.
These results are “massive,” said Mr. Kinnon. “It’s the most accurate test I’ve seen anywhere for predicting decline of a patient.”
The test can also accurately classify a patient’s stage of cognition, he added. “Not only does it allow us to predict 6 years in advance, it also tells us if the patient has SMC [subjective memory complaints], MCI, or AD with a 95% certainty,” Mr. Kinnon said.
He noted that test sensitivity was higher than results found from traditional methods that are currently being used. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), which were at 90% or more, were “absolutely fantastic,” said Mr. Kinnon.
“Better than expected” results
In the second “validation” study, investigators examined samples from a completely different group of 482 patients. The “very compelling” results showed AUCs over 90%, PPVs over 90%, and “very high” NPVs, Mr. Kinnon said.
“These are great data, better than we expected,” he added.
However, he noted the test is “very specific” for decline to AD and not to other dementias.
In addition, Mr. Kinnon noted the test does not monitor levels of amyloid beta or tau, which accumulate at a later stage of AD. “Amyloid and tau tell you you’ve got it. We’re there way before those concentrations become detectable,” he said.
Identifying patients who will progress to AD years before they have symptoms gives them time to make medical decisions. These patients may also try treatments at an earlier stage of the disease, when these therapies are most likely to be helpful, said Mr. Kinnon.
In addition, using the test could speed up the approval of prospective drug treatments for AD. Currently, pharmaceutical companies enroll thousands of patients into a clinical study “and they don’t know which ones will have AD,” Mr. Kinnon noted.
“This test tells you these are the ones who are going to progress and should go into the study, and these are the ones that aren’t. So it makes the studies statistically relevant and accurate,” he said.
Investigators can also use the test to monitor patients during a study instead of relying on expensive PET scans and painful and costly spinal fluid taps, he added.
Previous surveys and market research have shown that neurologists and general practitioners “want a blood test to screen patients early, to help educate and inform patients,” said Mr. Kinnon.
Further results that will include biobank data on more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe are due for completion toward the end of this year.
The company is currently in negotiations to bring the product to North America, Europe, and elsewhere. “Our goal is to have it on the market by the middle of next year in multiple regions,” Mr. Kinnon said.
Encouraging, preliminary
Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, MSc, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said “it’s exciting” to see development of novel ways for detecting or predicting AD.
“There is an urgent need for simple, inexpensive, noninvasive, and accessible early detection tools for Alzheimer’s, such as a blood test,” he said.
However, Dr. Griffin cautioned the test is still in the early stages of development and has not been tested extensively in large, diverse clinical trials.
In addition, although the test predicts whether a person will progress, it does not predict when the person will progress, he added.
“These preliminary results are encouraging, but further validation is needed before this test can be implemented widely,” he said.
Technologies that facilitate the early detection and intervention before significant loss of brain cells from AD “would be game-changing” for individuals, families, and the healthcare system, Dr. Griffin concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CTAD21
AAN issues ethical guidance on controversial Alzheimer’s drug
The statement includes ethical considerations and recommendations for informed consent, and the AAN notes that neurologists should ensure that patients understand all of the issues and uncertainties surrounding the use of aducanumab.
“Neurologists and other clinicians want to provide the best care to patients and families, particularly for a disease that is as challenging as Alzheimer’s. We hope that this statement can be a guide for clinicians in communicating with patients and families in order to carefully consider decisions about the use of aducanumab,” said lead author Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, University of California San Francisco Memory and Aging Center, and a member of the AAN’s Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee.
The statement was published online Nov. 17 in Neurology.
Open, honest communication
The Food and Drug Administration approved the antiamyloid agent aducanumab based on two studies that were both stopped prematurely for futility. In subsequent post hoc analyses of the available data, one of those studies indicated a statistically significant, albeit small, benefit with high-dose aducanumab, while the other study continued to show no benefit.
The clinical importance of the small statistical benefit in the single trial for daily function is unclear, and aducanumab was also associated with brain inflammation and brain bleeds in more than one-third of patients who received the FDA-approved dose, which requires regular brain MRI monitoring.
All of this should be communicated to patients, the AAN advises.
Patients should know that while aducanumab reduces beta-amyloid plaques in the brain that are markers of Alzheimer’s disease, it remains unclear whether this provides any meaningful benefit.
The AAN adds that it is equally important to tell patients and families that aducanumab does not restore cognitive function and that there is insufficient data to offer it to people with moderate or advanced dementia or to those without evidence of beta-amyloid plaques.
It’s important to note that very few participants in the aducanumab trials were Hispanic, Black, or Indigenous.
“Informed consent conversations with patients of populations underrepresented in clinical trials should include disclosure about the absence of safety and efficacy data in these groups,” the authors noted.
‘New territory’ for neurologists
“There are two aspects of aducanumab that are relatively new territory for us as neurologists,” Dr. Chiong said. One is the controversy about the evidence for the drug. “In the statement, we’ve tried to help clinicians communicate the uncertainty over aducanumab’s risks and potential benefits,” Dr. Chiong said. The other is the high cost of the drug and how it will be covered.
Aducanumab has a price tag of $56,000 per year, which does not include the cost of infusing the drug, required repeat imaging, and medical management.
The AAN estimates annual costs of prescribing aducanumab may top $100,000 per year. With Medicare generally covering 80%, patients and families must be told that the full costs of treatment may not be covered.
“Regarding cost, we probably don’t think often enough about what prescribing a drug means for an individual patient’s finances and for the health system,” said Dr. Chiong. “In particular, when patients are in Medicare we might assume their health care costs will be sufficiently covered, but because aducanumab is so expensive its use is likely to impose very significant costs on individual patients as well as to the Medicare program,” Dr. Chiong said.
“It is understandable why a new drug for Alzheimer’s disease generates so much interest, because while its approval has been controversial, it still offers a glimmer of hope to patients and their families,” AAN President Orly Avitzur, MD, said in a news release. “By using ethical principles to create this position statement, the American Academy of Neurology aims to help neurologists and other physicians transparently counsel patients and their families with a goal of providing the highest quality patient-centered care,” Dr. Avitzur said.
This statement was approved by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee, a joint committee of the AAN, American Neurological Association, and Child Neurology Society.
This research had no targeted funding. Dr. Chiong has received personal compensation for serving on the Neuroethics Working Group of the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, and his institution has received research support from the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The statement includes ethical considerations and recommendations for informed consent, and the AAN notes that neurologists should ensure that patients understand all of the issues and uncertainties surrounding the use of aducanumab.
“Neurologists and other clinicians want to provide the best care to patients and families, particularly for a disease that is as challenging as Alzheimer’s. We hope that this statement can be a guide for clinicians in communicating with patients and families in order to carefully consider decisions about the use of aducanumab,” said lead author Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, University of California San Francisco Memory and Aging Center, and a member of the AAN’s Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee.
The statement was published online Nov. 17 in Neurology.
Open, honest communication
The Food and Drug Administration approved the antiamyloid agent aducanumab based on two studies that were both stopped prematurely for futility. In subsequent post hoc analyses of the available data, one of those studies indicated a statistically significant, albeit small, benefit with high-dose aducanumab, while the other study continued to show no benefit.
The clinical importance of the small statistical benefit in the single trial for daily function is unclear, and aducanumab was also associated with brain inflammation and brain bleeds in more than one-third of patients who received the FDA-approved dose, which requires regular brain MRI monitoring.
All of this should be communicated to patients, the AAN advises.
Patients should know that while aducanumab reduces beta-amyloid plaques in the brain that are markers of Alzheimer’s disease, it remains unclear whether this provides any meaningful benefit.
The AAN adds that it is equally important to tell patients and families that aducanumab does not restore cognitive function and that there is insufficient data to offer it to people with moderate or advanced dementia or to those without evidence of beta-amyloid plaques.
It’s important to note that very few participants in the aducanumab trials were Hispanic, Black, or Indigenous.
“Informed consent conversations with patients of populations underrepresented in clinical trials should include disclosure about the absence of safety and efficacy data in these groups,” the authors noted.
‘New territory’ for neurologists
“There are two aspects of aducanumab that are relatively new territory for us as neurologists,” Dr. Chiong said. One is the controversy about the evidence for the drug. “In the statement, we’ve tried to help clinicians communicate the uncertainty over aducanumab’s risks and potential benefits,” Dr. Chiong said. The other is the high cost of the drug and how it will be covered.
Aducanumab has a price tag of $56,000 per year, which does not include the cost of infusing the drug, required repeat imaging, and medical management.
The AAN estimates annual costs of prescribing aducanumab may top $100,000 per year. With Medicare generally covering 80%, patients and families must be told that the full costs of treatment may not be covered.
“Regarding cost, we probably don’t think often enough about what prescribing a drug means for an individual patient’s finances and for the health system,” said Dr. Chiong. “In particular, when patients are in Medicare we might assume their health care costs will be sufficiently covered, but because aducanumab is so expensive its use is likely to impose very significant costs on individual patients as well as to the Medicare program,” Dr. Chiong said.
“It is understandable why a new drug for Alzheimer’s disease generates so much interest, because while its approval has been controversial, it still offers a glimmer of hope to patients and their families,” AAN President Orly Avitzur, MD, said in a news release. “By using ethical principles to create this position statement, the American Academy of Neurology aims to help neurologists and other physicians transparently counsel patients and their families with a goal of providing the highest quality patient-centered care,” Dr. Avitzur said.
This statement was approved by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee, a joint committee of the AAN, American Neurological Association, and Child Neurology Society.
This research had no targeted funding. Dr. Chiong has received personal compensation for serving on the Neuroethics Working Group of the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, and his institution has received research support from the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The statement includes ethical considerations and recommendations for informed consent, and the AAN notes that neurologists should ensure that patients understand all of the issues and uncertainties surrounding the use of aducanumab.
“Neurologists and other clinicians want to provide the best care to patients and families, particularly for a disease that is as challenging as Alzheimer’s. We hope that this statement can be a guide for clinicians in communicating with patients and families in order to carefully consider decisions about the use of aducanumab,” said lead author Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, University of California San Francisco Memory and Aging Center, and a member of the AAN’s Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee.
The statement was published online Nov. 17 in Neurology.
Open, honest communication
The Food and Drug Administration approved the antiamyloid agent aducanumab based on two studies that were both stopped prematurely for futility. In subsequent post hoc analyses of the available data, one of those studies indicated a statistically significant, albeit small, benefit with high-dose aducanumab, while the other study continued to show no benefit.
The clinical importance of the small statistical benefit in the single trial for daily function is unclear, and aducanumab was also associated with brain inflammation and brain bleeds in more than one-third of patients who received the FDA-approved dose, which requires regular brain MRI monitoring.
All of this should be communicated to patients, the AAN advises.
Patients should know that while aducanumab reduces beta-amyloid plaques in the brain that are markers of Alzheimer’s disease, it remains unclear whether this provides any meaningful benefit.
The AAN adds that it is equally important to tell patients and families that aducanumab does not restore cognitive function and that there is insufficient data to offer it to people with moderate or advanced dementia or to those without evidence of beta-amyloid plaques.
It’s important to note that very few participants in the aducanumab trials were Hispanic, Black, or Indigenous.
“Informed consent conversations with patients of populations underrepresented in clinical trials should include disclosure about the absence of safety and efficacy data in these groups,” the authors noted.
‘New territory’ for neurologists
“There are two aspects of aducanumab that are relatively new territory for us as neurologists,” Dr. Chiong said. One is the controversy about the evidence for the drug. “In the statement, we’ve tried to help clinicians communicate the uncertainty over aducanumab’s risks and potential benefits,” Dr. Chiong said. The other is the high cost of the drug and how it will be covered.
Aducanumab has a price tag of $56,000 per year, which does not include the cost of infusing the drug, required repeat imaging, and medical management.
The AAN estimates annual costs of prescribing aducanumab may top $100,000 per year. With Medicare generally covering 80%, patients and families must be told that the full costs of treatment may not be covered.
“Regarding cost, we probably don’t think often enough about what prescribing a drug means for an individual patient’s finances and for the health system,” said Dr. Chiong. “In particular, when patients are in Medicare we might assume their health care costs will be sufficiently covered, but because aducanumab is so expensive its use is likely to impose very significant costs on individual patients as well as to the Medicare program,” Dr. Chiong said.
“It is understandable why a new drug for Alzheimer’s disease generates so much interest, because while its approval has been controversial, it still offers a glimmer of hope to patients and their families,” AAN President Orly Avitzur, MD, said in a news release. “By using ethical principles to create this position statement, the American Academy of Neurology aims to help neurologists and other physicians transparently counsel patients and their families with a goal of providing the highest quality patient-centered care,” Dr. Avitzur said.
This statement was approved by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee, a joint committee of the AAN, American Neurological Association, and Child Neurology Society.
This research had no targeted funding. Dr. Chiong has received personal compensation for serving on the Neuroethics Working Group of the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, and his institution has received research support from the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy linked to later cognitive impairment
Women whose ovaries were surgically removed before the age of 46 had a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) around 30 years later, compared with those who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, according to a population-based linkage study published in JAMA Network Open.
The findings suggest that “physicians treating women with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy need to be aware of their patients’ risk of cognitive impairment or MCI and should consider implementing treatment-monitoring plans,” noted lead author Walter A. Rocca, MD, MPH, from the division of epidemiology, department of quantitative health sciences, at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and colleagues.
The results may particularly “help women at mean risk levels of ovarian cancer to better evaluate the risk-to-benefit ratio of undergoing bilateral oophorectomy prior to spontaneous menopause for the prevention of ovarian cancer,” they emphasized.
While the link between premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy and higher risk of cognitive impairment has been previously suggested, this new study “contributes valuable new data to a major public health importance issue and addresses a number of important shortcomings of existing literature,” Marios K. Georgakis, MD, PhD, and Eleni T. Petridou, MD, PhD, noted in an accompanying commentary.
“As bilateral oophorectomy is still a common procedure at least in well-resourced countries, the results of these studies should alert clinicians about its potential public health consequences. Given that the abrupt cessation of ovarian hormones might be accompanied by previously underestimated long-term adverse effects, treating physicians proposing the operation should weigh its benefits against potential long-term harmful effects, especially among women without an absolute indication,” noted Dr. Georgakis and Dr. Petridou, respectively from the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
The case-control cross-sectional study used data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), a prospective, population-based study examining risk factors for, as well as prevalence and incidence of cognitive decline and MCI among a representative sample of women in Olmsted County, Minn. It included 2,732 women aged 50-89 years who participated in the MCSA study from 2004 to 2019 and underwent a clinical evaluation and comprehensive cognitive testing including nine tests covering four cognitive domains. Almost all of the subjects (98.4%) were White. The mean age of cognitive evaluation was 74 years – at which time 283 women (10.4%) were diagnosed with MCI (197 with amnestic and 86 with nonamnestic MCI). Data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system showed a total of 625 women (22.9%) had a history of bilateral oophorectomy. Among this group, 161 women underwent the procedure both before age 46, and before menopause, with 46 (28.6%) receiving oral conjugated equine estrogen (unopposed) and the remaining 95 (59.0%) receiving no estrogen therapy.
The study found that, compared with women who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, those who did so before age 46, but not after this age, had statistically significantly increased odds of MCI (adjusted odds ratio, 2.21; P < .001). When type of MCI was examined, the risk was statistically significant for nonamnestic MCI (aOR, 2.96; P < .001), and amnestic (aOR, 1.87; P =.03). The study also found no evidence that estrogen therapy was associated with decreased risk of MCI among women aged less than 46 years, with an aOR of 2.56 in those who received estrogen therapy and 2.05 in those who did not (P = .01 for both).
Finally, in women who had bilateral oophorectomy before menopause and before age 50, surgical indication for the procedure affected the association with MCI. Indications of either cancer or “no ovarian condition” (i.e., performed at the time of hysterectomy) were associated with no increased risk, whereas there was a statistically significantly increased risk associated with benign indications such as an adnexal mass, cyst or endometriosis (aOR, 2.43; P = .003). “This is important,” noted the commentators, “because in many of those cases removal of both ovaries could be avoided.”
The study also found that, compared with women who had not undergone bilateral oophorectomy, those who had also had increased frequency of cardiovascular risk factors, heart disease, and stroke at the time of their cognitive evaluation. “Additional research is needed to clarify the biological explanation of the association,” the investigators said.
The prevailing hypothesis for why premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy is associated with cognitive decline “is that the abrupt endocrine cessation of exposure to ovarian hormones accelerates the aging process,” the commentators noted. “Most important from a clinical perspective is whether these women would benefit from specific hormone replacement therapy schemes. Observational studies cannot reliably answer this question, and possibly it is time to rethink designing trials in specific groups of women who underwent bilateral oophorectomy before 46 years of age starting treatment immediately thereafter.”
In an interview Dr. Georgakis elaborated on this point, saying that, while the Women’s Health Study clearly showed no benefit of hormone replacement therapy for preventing dementia, it recruited women who were aged 65 years or older and had therefore undergone menopause more than 10-15 years earlier. “A hypothesis suggests that a critical vulnerability window exists shortly after menopause during which hormone replacement therapy might be needed to ameliorate any elevated risk,” he said. “Thus, it might make sense to reconsider a trial focused on this group of premenopausal women, who need to undergo oophorectomy at a young age (<46 years). Early initiation would be important. Unfortunately, such a trial would be difficult to conduct, because these women would need to be followed up for very long periods, as cognitive decline usually does not occur before the age of 65.”
Asked to comment on the study, Meadow Good, DO, an ob.gyn., female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon, and physician adviser for Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women & Babies in Orlando, said this study adds credibility to previous studies showing the cognitive risk associated with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy. “The literature is now pointing to a need to refrain from elective bilateral oophorectomy in women less than 60,” she said in an interview. “It should not be common that a women receives a bilateral oophorectomy before 60 for benign reasons.”
She added that cognition is not the only think at stake. “Bilateral oophorectomy before the age of 60 has a higher risk of incident heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and total cancers,” she said, citing a prospective cohort study within the Nurses’ Health Study.
Dr. Rocca reported financial support from the Mayo Clinic Research Committee during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported unrestricted grants from Biogen and consulting fees from Brain Protection outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported from the authors. Dr. Georgakis, Dr. Petridou, and Dr. Good reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. It also used resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system, which is supported by the NIA, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and user fees. Dr. Rocca was partly funded by the Ralph S. and Beverley E. Caulkins Professorship of Neurodegenerative Diseases Research of the Mayo Clinic.
Women whose ovaries were surgically removed before the age of 46 had a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) around 30 years later, compared with those who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, according to a population-based linkage study published in JAMA Network Open.
The findings suggest that “physicians treating women with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy need to be aware of their patients’ risk of cognitive impairment or MCI and should consider implementing treatment-monitoring plans,” noted lead author Walter A. Rocca, MD, MPH, from the division of epidemiology, department of quantitative health sciences, at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and colleagues.
The results may particularly “help women at mean risk levels of ovarian cancer to better evaluate the risk-to-benefit ratio of undergoing bilateral oophorectomy prior to spontaneous menopause for the prevention of ovarian cancer,” they emphasized.
While the link between premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy and higher risk of cognitive impairment has been previously suggested, this new study “contributes valuable new data to a major public health importance issue and addresses a number of important shortcomings of existing literature,” Marios K. Georgakis, MD, PhD, and Eleni T. Petridou, MD, PhD, noted in an accompanying commentary.
“As bilateral oophorectomy is still a common procedure at least in well-resourced countries, the results of these studies should alert clinicians about its potential public health consequences. Given that the abrupt cessation of ovarian hormones might be accompanied by previously underestimated long-term adverse effects, treating physicians proposing the operation should weigh its benefits against potential long-term harmful effects, especially among women without an absolute indication,” noted Dr. Georgakis and Dr. Petridou, respectively from the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
The case-control cross-sectional study used data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), a prospective, population-based study examining risk factors for, as well as prevalence and incidence of cognitive decline and MCI among a representative sample of women in Olmsted County, Minn. It included 2,732 women aged 50-89 years who participated in the MCSA study from 2004 to 2019 and underwent a clinical evaluation and comprehensive cognitive testing including nine tests covering four cognitive domains. Almost all of the subjects (98.4%) were White. The mean age of cognitive evaluation was 74 years – at which time 283 women (10.4%) were diagnosed with MCI (197 with amnestic and 86 with nonamnestic MCI). Data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system showed a total of 625 women (22.9%) had a history of bilateral oophorectomy. Among this group, 161 women underwent the procedure both before age 46, and before menopause, with 46 (28.6%) receiving oral conjugated equine estrogen (unopposed) and the remaining 95 (59.0%) receiving no estrogen therapy.
The study found that, compared with women who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, those who did so before age 46, but not after this age, had statistically significantly increased odds of MCI (adjusted odds ratio, 2.21; P < .001). When type of MCI was examined, the risk was statistically significant for nonamnestic MCI (aOR, 2.96; P < .001), and amnestic (aOR, 1.87; P =.03). The study also found no evidence that estrogen therapy was associated with decreased risk of MCI among women aged less than 46 years, with an aOR of 2.56 in those who received estrogen therapy and 2.05 in those who did not (P = .01 for both).
Finally, in women who had bilateral oophorectomy before menopause and before age 50, surgical indication for the procedure affected the association with MCI. Indications of either cancer or “no ovarian condition” (i.e., performed at the time of hysterectomy) were associated with no increased risk, whereas there was a statistically significantly increased risk associated with benign indications such as an adnexal mass, cyst or endometriosis (aOR, 2.43; P = .003). “This is important,” noted the commentators, “because in many of those cases removal of both ovaries could be avoided.”
The study also found that, compared with women who had not undergone bilateral oophorectomy, those who had also had increased frequency of cardiovascular risk factors, heart disease, and stroke at the time of their cognitive evaluation. “Additional research is needed to clarify the biological explanation of the association,” the investigators said.
The prevailing hypothesis for why premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy is associated with cognitive decline “is that the abrupt endocrine cessation of exposure to ovarian hormones accelerates the aging process,” the commentators noted. “Most important from a clinical perspective is whether these women would benefit from specific hormone replacement therapy schemes. Observational studies cannot reliably answer this question, and possibly it is time to rethink designing trials in specific groups of women who underwent bilateral oophorectomy before 46 years of age starting treatment immediately thereafter.”
In an interview Dr. Georgakis elaborated on this point, saying that, while the Women’s Health Study clearly showed no benefit of hormone replacement therapy for preventing dementia, it recruited women who were aged 65 years or older and had therefore undergone menopause more than 10-15 years earlier. “A hypothesis suggests that a critical vulnerability window exists shortly after menopause during which hormone replacement therapy might be needed to ameliorate any elevated risk,” he said. “Thus, it might make sense to reconsider a trial focused on this group of premenopausal women, who need to undergo oophorectomy at a young age (<46 years). Early initiation would be important. Unfortunately, such a trial would be difficult to conduct, because these women would need to be followed up for very long periods, as cognitive decline usually does not occur before the age of 65.”
Asked to comment on the study, Meadow Good, DO, an ob.gyn., female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon, and physician adviser for Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women & Babies in Orlando, said this study adds credibility to previous studies showing the cognitive risk associated with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy. “The literature is now pointing to a need to refrain from elective bilateral oophorectomy in women less than 60,” she said in an interview. “It should not be common that a women receives a bilateral oophorectomy before 60 for benign reasons.”
She added that cognition is not the only think at stake. “Bilateral oophorectomy before the age of 60 has a higher risk of incident heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and total cancers,” she said, citing a prospective cohort study within the Nurses’ Health Study.
Dr. Rocca reported financial support from the Mayo Clinic Research Committee during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported unrestricted grants from Biogen and consulting fees from Brain Protection outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported from the authors. Dr. Georgakis, Dr. Petridou, and Dr. Good reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. It also used resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system, which is supported by the NIA, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and user fees. Dr. Rocca was partly funded by the Ralph S. and Beverley E. Caulkins Professorship of Neurodegenerative Diseases Research of the Mayo Clinic.
Women whose ovaries were surgically removed before the age of 46 had a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) around 30 years later, compared with those who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, according to a population-based linkage study published in JAMA Network Open.
The findings suggest that “physicians treating women with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy need to be aware of their patients’ risk of cognitive impairment or MCI and should consider implementing treatment-monitoring plans,” noted lead author Walter A. Rocca, MD, MPH, from the division of epidemiology, department of quantitative health sciences, at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and colleagues.
The results may particularly “help women at mean risk levels of ovarian cancer to better evaluate the risk-to-benefit ratio of undergoing bilateral oophorectomy prior to spontaneous menopause for the prevention of ovarian cancer,” they emphasized.
While the link between premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy and higher risk of cognitive impairment has been previously suggested, this new study “contributes valuable new data to a major public health importance issue and addresses a number of important shortcomings of existing literature,” Marios K. Georgakis, MD, PhD, and Eleni T. Petridou, MD, PhD, noted in an accompanying commentary.
“As bilateral oophorectomy is still a common procedure at least in well-resourced countries, the results of these studies should alert clinicians about its potential public health consequences. Given that the abrupt cessation of ovarian hormones might be accompanied by previously underestimated long-term adverse effects, treating physicians proposing the operation should weigh its benefits against potential long-term harmful effects, especially among women without an absolute indication,” noted Dr. Georgakis and Dr. Petridou, respectively from the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
The case-control cross-sectional study used data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), a prospective, population-based study examining risk factors for, as well as prevalence and incidence of cognitive decline and MCI among a representative sample of women in Olmsted County, Minn. It included 2,732 women aged 50-89 years who participated in the MCSA study from 2004 to 2019 and underwent a clinical evaluation and comprehensive cognitive testing including nine tests covering four cognitive domains. Almost all of the subjects (98.4%) were White. The mean age of cognitive evaluation was 74 years – at which time 283 women (10.4%) were diagnosed with MCI (197 with amnestic and 86 with nonamnestic MCI). Data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system showed a total of 625 women (22.9%) had a history of bilateral oophorectomy. Among this group, 161 women underwent the procedure both before age 46, and before menopause, with 46 (28.6%) receiving oral conjugated equine estrogen (unopposed) and the remaining 95 (59.0%) receiving no estrogen therapy.
The study found that, compared with women who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, those who did so before age 46, but not after this age, had statistically significantly increased odds of MCI (adjusted odds ratio, 2.21; P < .001). When type of MCI was examined, the risk was statistically significant for nonamnestic MCI (aOR, 2.96; P < .001), and amnestic (aOR, 1.87; P =.03). The study also found no evidence that estrogen therapy was associated with decreased risk of MCI among women aged less than 46 years, with an aOR of 2.56 in those who received estrogen therapy and 2.05 in those who did not (P = .01 for both).
Finally, in women who had bilateral oophorectomy before menopause and before age 50, surgical indication for the procedure affected the association with MCI. Indications of either cancer or “no ovarian condition” (i.e., performed at the time of hysterectomy) were associated with no increased risk, whereas there was a statistically significantly increased risk associated with benign indications such as an adnexal mass, cyst or endometriosis (aOR, 2.43; P = .003). “This is important,” noted the commentators, “because in many of those cases removal of both ovaries could be avoided.”
The study also found that, compared with women who had not undergone bilateral oophorectomy, those who had also had increased frequency of cardiovascular risk factors, heart disease, and stroke at the time of their cognitive evaluation. “Additional research is needed to clarify the biological explanation of the association,” the investigators said.
The prevailing hypothesis for why premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy is associated with cognitive decline “is that the abrupt endocrine cessation of exposure to ovarian hormones accelerates the aging process,” the commentators noted. “Most important from a clinical perspective is whether these women would benefit from specific hormone replacement therapy schemes. Observational studies cannot reliably answer this question, and possibly it is time to rethink designing trials in specific groups of women who underwent bilateral oophorectomy before 46 years of age starting treatment immediately thereafter.”
In an interview Dr. Georgakis elaborated on this point, saying that, while the Women’s Health Study clearly showed no benefit of hormone replacement therapy for preventing dementia, it recruited women who were aged 65 years or older and had therefore undergone menopause more than 10-15 years earlier. “A hypothesis suggests that a critical vulnerability window exists shortly after menopause during which hormone replacement therapy might be needed to ameliorate any elevated risk,” he said. “Thus, it might make sense to reconsider a trial focused on this group of premenopausal women, who need to undergo oophorectomy at a young age (<46 years). Early initiation would be important. Unfortunately, such a trial would be difficult to conduct, because these women would need to be followed up for very long periods, as cognitive decline usually does not occur before the age of 65.”
Asked to comment on the study, Meadow Good, DO, an ob.gyn., female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon, and physician adviser for Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women & Babies in Orlando, said this study adds credibility to previous studies showing the cognitive risk associated with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy. “The literature is now pointing to a need to refrain from elective bilateral oophorectomy in women less than 60,” she said in an interview. “It should not be common that a women receives a bilateral oophorectomy before 60 for benign reasons.”
She added that cognition is not the only think at stake. “Bilateral oophorectomy before the age of 60 has a higher risk of incident heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and total cancers,” she said, citing a prospective cohort study within the Nurses’ Health Study.
Dr. Rocca reported financial support from the Mayo Clinic Research Committee during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported unrestricted grants from Biogen and consulting fees from Brain Protection outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported from the authors. Dr. Georgakis, Dr. Petridou, and Dr. Good reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. It also used resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system, which is supported by the NIA, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and user fees. Dr. Rocca was partly funded by the Ralph S. and Beverley E. Caulkins Professorship of Neurodegenerative Diseases Research of the Mayo Clinic.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Controversial Alzheimer’s drug unlikely to get the OK in Europe
At its November meeting, , making it highly unlikely the drug will be recommended for approval at its December meeting.
In a news release issued Nov. 17, Biogen said the company received a “negative trend vote” on the aducanumab marketing authorization application in Europe.
“While we are disappointed with the trend vote, we strongly believe in the strength of our data and that aducanumab has the potential to make a positive and meaningful difference for people and families affected by Alzheimer’s disease [AD],” Priya Singhal, MD, MPH, head of global safety and regulatory sciences and interim head of research and development at Biogen, said in the release.
The EMA committee is expected to adopt a formal opinion on the marketing application at its December meeting (Dec. 13-16, 2021).
“Biogen will continue to engage with the EMA and CHMP as it considers next steps towards the goal of providing access to aducanumab to patients in Europe,” the company said.
At the recent Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference, Biogen announced new phase 3 findings that “provide further evidence of aducanumab’s effect on lowering amyloid beta plaque and downstream tau pathology, the two defining pathologies of Alzheimer’s disease,” the company said.
No clinically meaningful effect
In a statement from the nonprofit U.K. Science Media Centre, Prof. Robert Howard, from University College London, said the result of the CHMP vote “is absolutely the decision that we should have expected from the EMA’s expert advisory panel and is consistent with the FDA’s [U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s] Advisory Committee who voted unanimously 12 months ago against approval of aducanumab because of a lack of demonstrable efficacy in the pivotal phase 3 trials ENGAGE and EMERGE.”
“The FDA’s accelerated approval of aducanumab, solely on the grounds that it was reasonable to expect that reduction in amyloid would lead to improvement in the course of Alzheimer’s disease, despite all the evidence indicating no meaningful correlation between amyloid reduction and symptom improvement, has been highly controversial and has called into question the impartiality of the FDA and its staff,” Prof. Howard noted.
He anticipates that when the EMA panel meets in December they will not grant a license to aducanumab.
“Aducanumab is a treatment without convincing efficacy, with serious associated adverse effects and a high financial cost. On the basis of the available evidence and in the best interests of people with Alzheimer’s disease, their families and those who care for them, EMA and MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] should not approve a license for aducanumab,” Prof. Howard said.
Also weighing in, David Thomas, head of policy at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said the need for new AD treatments is “urgent,” but added that “it’s vital that regulators judge that any new treatment is safe and effective.”
“Results of aducanumab’s phase 3 trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, have sparked much debate among the research community about how to judge the effectiveness of any new Alzheimer’s treatment,” Mr. Thomas noted.
“The FDA’s approval of aducanumab in the U.S. was based on the drug’s ability to clear the hallmark Alzheimer’s protein amyloid from the brain. As part of this approval the regulator now requires further trials to be carried out to ensure that aducanumab brings long-term improvement to people’s memory, thinking and day-to-day lives,” Mr. Thomas said.
EMA is now undertaking its own review of the data and “it’s important that we wait for the committee’s official recommendation, which is expected next month. In the meantime, we must continue to work at pace to ensure researchers are developing a broad pipeline of potential new treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s, and that health systems like the NHS [National Health Service] will be ready to deliver them in the years ahead,” he added.
‘Reckless’ FDA decision
In related news, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced that the Medicare Part B standard premium would rise to $170 per month for all enrollees, a 15% spike over the 2021 premium level.
“All Part B Medicare beneficiaries soon will be forced to bear significant financial burden as a direct result of the FDA’s reckless decision to approve aducanumab, a drug that has not been proven to provide any clinically meaningful benefit to Alzheimer’s patients but nevertheless carries an indefensible annual price tag set by Biogen at $56,000 per year for just the drug alone,” Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.
“To protect the many Medicare beneficiaries who cannot afford the unacceptable 15% jump in Part B premiums, CMS must promptly announce that it will exclude aducanumab from coverage under the Medicare program until there is definitive evidence that the drug provides substantial evidence of cognitive benefit to Alzheimer’s disease patients,” Dr. Carome said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At its November meeting, , making it highly unlikely the drug will be recommended for approval at its December meeting.
In a news release issued Nov. 17, Biogen said the company received a “negative trend vote” on the aducanumab marketing authorization application in Europe.
“While we are disappointed with the trend vote, we strongly believe in the strength of our data and that aducanumab has the potential to make a positive and meaningful difference for people and families affected by Alzheimer’s disease [AD],” Priya Singhal, MD, MPH, head of global safety and regulatory sciences and interim head of research and development at Biogen, said in the release.
The EMA committee is expected to adopt a formal opinion on the marketing application at its December meeting (Dec. 13-16, 2021).
“Biogen will continue to engage with the EMA and CHMP as it considers next steps towards the goal of providing access to aducanumab to patients in Europe,” the company said.
At the recent Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference, Biogen announced new phase 3 findings that “provide further evidence of aducanumab’s effect on lowering amyloid beta plaque and downstream tau pathology, the two defining pathologies of Alzheimer’s disease,” the company said.
No clinically meaningful effect
In a statement from the nonprofit U.K. Science Media Centre, Prof. Robert Howard, from University College London, said the result of the CHMP vote “is absolutely the decision that we should have expected from the EMA’s expert advisory panel and is consistent with the FDA’s [U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s] Advisory Committee who voted unanimously 12 months ago against approval of aducanumab because of a lack of demonstrable efficacy in the pivotal phase 3 trials ENGAGE and EMERGE.”
“The FDA’s accelerated approval of aducanumab, solely on the grounds that it was reasonable to expect that reduction in amyloid would lead to improvement in the course of Alzheimer’s disease, despite all the evidence indicating no meaningful correlation between amyloid reduction and symptom improvement, has been highly controversial and has called into question the impartiality of the FDA and its staff,” Prof. Howard noted.
He anticipates that when the EMA panel meets in December they will not grant a license to aducanumab.
“Aducanumab is a treatment without convincing efficacy, with serious associated adverse effects and a high financial cost. On the basis of the available evidence and in the best interests of people with Alzheimer’s disease, their families and those who care for them, EMA and MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] should not approve a license for aducanumab,” Prof. Howard said.
Also weighing in, David Thomas, head of policy at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said the need for new AD treatments is “urgent,” but added that “it’s vital that regulators judge that any new treatment is safe and effective.”
“Results of aducanumab’s phase 3 trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, have sparked much debate among the research community about how to judge the effectiveness of any new Alzheimer’s treatment,” Mr. Thomas noted.
“The FDA’s approval of aducanumab in the U.S. was based on the drug’s ability to clear the hallmark Alzheimer’s protein amyloid from the brain. As part of this approval the regulator now requires further trials to be carried out to ensure that aducanumab brings long-term improvement to people’s memory, thinking and day-to-day lives,” Mr. Thomas said.
EMA is now undertaking its own review of the data and “it’s important that we wait for the committee’s official recommendation, which is expected next month. In the meantime, we must continue to work at pace to ensure researchers are developing a broad pipeline of potential new treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s, and that health systems like the NHS [National Health Service] will be ready to deliver them in the years ahead,” he added.
‘Reckless’ FDA decision
In related news, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced that the Medicare Part B standard premium would rise to $170 per month for all enrollees, a 15% spike over the 2021 premium level.
“All Part B Medicare beneficiaries soon will be forced to bear significant financial burden as a direct result of the FDA’s reckless decision to approve aducanumab, a drug that has not been proven to provide any clinically meaningful benefit to Alzheimer’s patients but nevertheless carries an indefensible annual price tag set by Biogen at $56,000 per year for just the drug alone,” Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.
“To protect the many Medicare beneficiaries who cannot afford the unacceptable 15% jump in Part B premiums, CMS must promptly announce that it will exclude aducanumab from coverage under the Medicare program until there is definitive evidence that the drug provides substantial evidence of cognitive benefit to Alzheimer’s disease patients,” Dr. Carome said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At its November meeting, , making it highly unlikely the drug will be recommended for approval at its December meeting.
In a news release issued Nov. 17, Biogen said the company received a “negative trend vote” on the aducanumab marketing authorization application in Europe.
“While we are disappointed with the trend vote, we strongly believe in the strength of our data and that aducanumab has the potential to make a positive and meaningful difference for people and families affected by Alzheimer’s disease [AD],” Priya Singhal, MD, MPH, head of global safety and regulatory sciences and interim head of research and development at Biogen, said in the release.
The EMA committee is expected to adopt a formal opinion on the marketing application at its December meeting (Dec. 13-16, 2021).
“Biogen will continue to engage with the EMA and CHMP as it considers next steps towards the goal of providing access to aducanumab to patients in Europe,” the company said.
At the recent Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference, Biogen announced new phase 3 findings that “provide further evidence of aducanumab’s effect on lowering amyloid beta plaque and downstream tau pathology, the two defining pathologies of Alzheimer’s disease,” the company said.
No clinically meaningful effect
In a statement from the nonprofit U.K. Science Media Centre, Prof. Robert Howard, from University College London, said the result of the CHMP vote “is absolutely the decision that we should have expected from the EMA’s expert advisory panel and is consistent with the FDA’s [U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s] Advisory Committee who voted unanimously 12 months ago against approval of aducanumab because of a lack of demonstrable efficacy in the pivotal phase 3 trials ENGAGE and EMERGE.”
“The FDA’s accelerated approval of aducanumab, solely on the grounds that it was reasonable to expect that reduction in amyloid would lead to improvement in the course of Alzheimer’s disease, despite all the evidence indicating no meaningful correlation between amyloid reduction and symptom improvement, has been highly controversial and has called into question the impartiality of the FDA and its staff,” Prof. Howard noted.
He anticipates that when the EMA panel meets in December they will not grant a license to aducanumab.
“Aducanumab is a treatment without convincing efficacy, with serious associated adverse effects and a high financial cost. On the basis of the available evidence and in the best interests of people with Alzheimer’s disease, their families and those who care for them, EMA and MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] should not approve a license for aducanumab,” Prof. Howard said.
Also weighing in, David Thomas, head of policy at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said the need for new AD treatments is “urgent,” but added that “it’s vital that regulators judge that any new treatment is safe and effective.”
“Results of aducanumab’s phase 3 trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, have sparked much debate among the research community about how to judge the effectiveness of any new Alzheimer’s treatment,” Mr. Thomas noted.
“The FDA’s approval of aducanumab in the U.S. was based on the drug’s ability to clear the hallmark Alzheimer’s protein amyloid from the brain. As part of this approval the regulator now requires further trials to be carried out to ensure that aducanumab brings long-term improvement to people’s memory, thinking and day-to-day lives,” Mr. Thomas said.
EMA is now undertaking its own review of the data and “it’s important that we wait for the committee’s official recommendation, which is expected next month. In the meantime, we must continue to work at pace to ensure researchers are developing a broad pipeline of potential new treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s, and that health systems like the NHS [National Health Service] will be ready to deliver them in the years ahead,” he added.
‘Reckless’ FDA decision
In related news, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced that the Medicare Part B standard premium would rise to $170 per month for all enrollees, a 15% spike over the 2021 premium level.
“All Part B Medicare beneficiaries soon will be forced to bear significant financial burden as a direct result of the FDA’s reckless decision to approve aducanumab, a drug that has not been proven to provide any clinically meaningful benefit to Alzheimer’s patients but nevertheless carries an indefensible annual price tag set by Biogen at $56,000 per year for just the drug alone,” Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.
“To protect the many Medicare beneficiaries who cannot afford the unacceptable 15% jump in Part B premiums, CMS must promptly announce that it will exclude aducanumab from coverage under the Medicare program until there is definitive evidence that the drug provides substantial evidence of cognitive benefit to Alzheimer’s disease patients,” Dr. Carome said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Coffee or tea? Drinking both tied to lower stroke, dementia risk
Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.
Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.
“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
Synergistic effect?
Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.
Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.
During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.
After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).
Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).
Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).
Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).
There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.
Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.
“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
Synergistic effect?
Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.
Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.
During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.
After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).
Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).
Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).
Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).
There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.
Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.
“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
Synergistic effect?
Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.
Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.
During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.
After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).
Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).
Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).
Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).
There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASCEND: Aspirin shows hint of dementia protection in T2D
A regimen of daily, low-dose aspirin failed to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment in ASCEND, a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 15,000 people with diabetes followed for an average of more than 9 years, but the results hinted at enough of a benefit to warrant further study, some experts said.
“The question remains open,” said Jane Armitage, MBBS, FRCP, as she presented the findings at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “The rate ratios suggest some benefit. It’s encouraging,” added Dr. Armitage, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at Oxford (England) University.
The study tallied dementia outcomes three different ways: It applied a narrow definition that relied on a specific diagnosis of dementia in a person’s EHR or in their death record. (Dr. Armitage and her associates tracked outcomes for 99% of the enrolled participants by linking to their U.K. national health records and death records.)
A second metric used a broader outcome definition that tracked EHR entries for not only dementia but also diagnoses of cognitive impairment, delirium, confusion, prescription of dementia medications, and referral to a memory clinic or geriatric psychiatry. The third assessment was a cognitive-function test given to participants at the end of follow-up, but only 58% of enrolled participants completed this part of the study, and it’s also possible that some subjects missed this assessment because of dementia onset. These limitations hamper clear interpretation of this third metric, Dr. Armitage said.
The main findings for the other two, more reliable measures of incident dementia or cognitive deterioration showed a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction linked with aspirin use compared with placebo for the more inclusive endpoint, and a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction with aspirin using the narrow definition for dementia only, she reported. The third method, a directly administered assessment of dementia and cognition, also showed a small, nonsignificant effect from daily aspirin use relative to placebo.
Results can’t rule out modest aspirin effect
Dr. Armitage highlighted that the two more reliable measures both appeared to rule out risk for neurologic harm from aspirin because the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for relative effect reached only 1.02 using the broad outcomes, and 1.06 for the narrower endpoint of dementia only. On the other hand, focus on the low end of the 95% confidence interval suggested potentially meaningful benefits, with a possible reduction by aspirin in events relative to placebo of as much as 19% by the broad outcome definition and by 25% with the narrow definition.
“Even if it was only a 15% relative risk reduction, that would be important,” given the high dementia incidence worldwide, Dr. Armitage said during a press briefing. “It’s entirely possible, with our results, that a modest benefit exists.”
This take on the findings won some support. Further studies with more people, longer follow-up, and perhaps enrolling a more selected, higher risk cohort may better address potential neurologic benefit from aspirin, suggested Amytis Towfighi, MD, a stroke neurologist and professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a designated discussant for the report.
The result “was rather encouraging. I was a little surprised” by the findings, commented Chrystie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and director of the Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, also a discussant.
The results “don’t mean that no one benefits from aspirin. Perhaps certain people at risk would benefit from dementia protection. It’s an open question,” commented Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
But others saw the findings as more unequivocally neutral. “This gives us an early, preliminary answer, that aspirin does not seem to improve dementia,” commented Amit Khera, MD, professor and director of Preventive Cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a third discussant at the meeting.
Evidence against routine, widespread primary prevention with aspirin
ASCEND had the primary goal of assessing a daily, 100-mg aspirin dose for its safety and efficacy for preventing vascular events such as MIs and ischemic strokes in 15,480 people with diabetes who were at least 40 years old at enrollment and had no history of cardiovascular disease. The main results came out in 2018 and showed that while aspirin produced a significant benefit by reducing thrombotic events, it also resulted in significantly more major bleeding events compared with placebo, and overall the magnitude of benefit roughly matched magnitude of risk.
These findings, along with similar results from two other high-profile aspirin studies reported at about the same time (ASPREE, and ARRIVE), led to recommendations from groups like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that caution against widespread, routine aspirin use for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in most adults.
The groups instead endorsed a tailored strategy of targeting aspirin to people with a higher than average risk for ischemic thrombotic events and a lower than average bleeding risk. (The most recent aspirin recommendations from the USPSTF, currently in draft form, substantially curtail aspirin’s appropriate use, eliminating it in those over age 60 years.)
However, experts and prevailing practice recommendations continue to endorse routine aspirin use for secondary prevention in patients with an established history of cardiovascular disease.
The new findings reported by Dr. Armitage came from additional analyses of dementia and cognitive impairment overlaid on the main ASCEND outcome analyses. ASCEND actively treated and followed study participants for an average of 7.4 years, then researchers tracked further dementia outcomes based on medical-record entries for an average of another 1.8 years.
ASCEND received partial funding or support from Abbott, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage had no disclosures. Dr. Towfighi, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne has had financial relationships with numerous companies.
A regimen of daily, low-dose aspirin failed to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment in ASCEND, a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 15,000 people with diabetes followed for an average of more than 9 years, but the results hinted at enough of a benefit to warrant further study, some experts said.
“The question remains open,” said Jane Armitage, MBBS, FRCP, as she presented the findings at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “The rate ratios suggest some benefit. It’s encouraging,” added Dr. Armitage, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at Oxford (England) University.
The study tallied dementia outcomes three different ways: It applied a narrow definition that relied on a specific diagnosis of dementia in a person’s EHR or in their death record. (Dr. Armitage and her associates tracked outcomes for 99% of the enrolled participants by linking to their U.K. national health records and death records.)
A second metric used a broader outcome definition that tracked EHR entries for not only dementia but also diagnoses of cognitive impairment, delirium, confusion, prescription of dementia medications, and referral to a memory clinic or geriatric psychiatry. The third assessment was a cognitive-function test given to participants at the end of follow-up, but only 58% of enrolled participants completed this part of the study, and it’s also possible that some subjects missed this assessment because of dementia onset. These limitations hamper clear interpretation of this third metric, Dr. Armitage said.
The main findings for the other two, more reliable measures of incident dementia or cognitive deterioration showed a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction linked with aspirin use compared with placebo for the more inclusive endpoint, and a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction with aspirin using the narrow definition for dementia only, she reported. The third method, a directly administered assessment of dementia and cognition, also showed a small, nonsignificant effect from daily aspirin use relative to placebo.
Results can’t rule out modest aspirin effect
Dr. Armitage highlighted that the two more reliable measures both appeared to rule out risk for neurologic harm from aspirin because the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for relative effect reached only 1.02 using the broad outcomes, and 1.06 for the narrower endpoint of dementia only. On the other hand, focus on the low end of the 95% confidence interval suggested potentially meaningful benefits, with a possible reduction by aspirin in events relative to placebo of as much as 19% by the broad outcome definition and by 25% with the narrow definition.
“Even if it was only a 15% relative risk reduction, that would be important,” given the high dementia incidence worldwide, Dr. Armitage said during a press briefing. “It’s entirely possible, with our results, that a modest benefit exists.”
This take on the findings won some support. Further studies with more people, longer follow-up, and perhaps enrolling a more selected, higher risk cohort may better address potential neurologic benefit from aspirin, suggested Amytis Towfighi, MD, a stroke neurologist and professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a designated discussant for the report.
The result “was rather encouraging. I was a little surprised” by the findings, commented Chrystie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and director of the Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, also a discussant.
The results “don’t mean that no one benefits from aspirin. Perhaps certain people at risk would benefit from dementia protection. It’s an open question,” commented Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
But others saw the findings as more unequivocally neutral. “This gives us an early, preliminary answer, that aspirin does not seem to improve dementia,” commented Amit Khera, MD, professor and director of Preventive Cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a third discussant at the meeting.
Evidence against routine, widespread primary prevention with aspirin
ASCEND had the primary goal of assessing a daily, 100-mg aspirin dose for its safety and efficacy for preventing vascular events such as MIs and ischemic strokes in 15,480 people with diabetes who were at least 40 years old at enrollment and had no history of cardiovascular disease. The main results came out in 2018 and showed that while aspirin produced a significant benefit by reducing thrombotic events, it also resulted in significantly more major bleeding events compared with placebo, and overall the magnitude of benefit roughly matched magnitude of risk.
These findings, along with similar results from two other high-profile aspirin studies reported at about the same time (ASPREE, and ARRIVE), led to recommendations from groups like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that caution against widespread, routine aspirin use for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in most adults.
The groups instead endorsed a tailored strategy of targeting aspirin to people with a higher than average risk for ischemic thrombotic events and a lower than average bleeding risk. (The most recent aspirin recommendations from the USPSTF, currently in draft form, substantially curtail aspirin’s appropriate use, eliminating it in those over age 60 years.)
However, experts and prevailing practice recommendations continue to endorse routine aspirin use for secondary prevention in patients with an established history of cardiovascular disease.
The new findings reported by Dr. Armitage came from additional analyses of dementia and cognitive impairment overlaid on the main ASCEND outcome analyses. ASCEND actively treated and followed study participants for an average of 7.4 years, then researchers tracked further dementia outcomes based on medical-record entries for an average of another 1.8 years.
ASCEND received partial funding or support from Abbott, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage had no disclosures. Dr. Towfighi, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne has had financial relationships with numerous companies.
A regimen of daily, low-dose aspirin failed to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment in ASCEND, a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 15,000 people with diabetes followed for an average of more than 9 years, but the results hinted at enough of a benefit to warrant further study, some experts said.
“The question remains open,” said Jane Armitage, MBBS, FRCP, as she presented the findings at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “The rate ratios suggest some benefit. It’s encouraging,” added Dr. Armitage, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at Oxford (England) University.
The study tallied dementia outcomes three different ways: It applied a narrow definition that relied on a specific diagnosis of dementia in a person’s EHR or in their death record. (Dr. Armitage and her associates tracked outcomes for 99% of the enrolled participants by linking to their U.K. national health records and death records.)
A second metric used a broader outcome definition that tracked EHR entries for not only dementia but also diagnoses of cognitive impairment, delirium, confusion, prescription of dementia medications, and referral to a memory clinic or geriatric psychiatry. The third assessment was a cognitive-function test given to participants at the end of follow-up, but only 58% of enrolled participants completed this part of the study, and it’s also possible that some subjects missed this assessment because of dementia onset. These limitations hamper clear interpretation of this third metric, Dr. Armitage said.
The main findings for the other two, more reliable measures of incident dementia or cognitive deterioration showed a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction linked with aspirin use compared with placebo for the more inclusive endpoint, and a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction with aspirin using the narrow definition for dementia only, she reported. The third method, a directly administered assessment of dementia and cognition, also showed a small, nonsignificant effect from daily aspirin use relative to placebo.
Results can’t rule out modest aspirin effect
Dr. Armitage highlighted that the two more reliable measures both appeared to rule out risk for neurologic harm from aspirin because the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for relative effect reached only 1.02 using the broad outcomes, and 1.06 for the narrower endpoint of dementia only. On the other hand, focus on the low end of the 95% confidence interval suggested potentially meaningful benefits, with a possible reduction by aspirin in events relative to placebo of as much as 19% by the broad outcome definition and by 25% with the narrow definition.
“Even if it was only a 15% relative risk reduction, that would be important,” given the high dementia incidence worldwide, Dr. Armitage said during a press briefing. “It’s entirely possible, with our results, that a modest benefit exists.”
This take on the findings won some support. Further studies with more people, longer follow-up, and perhaps enrolling a more selected, higher risk cohort may better address potential neurologic benefit from aspirin, suggested Amytis Towfighi, MD, a stroke neurologist and professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a designated discussant for the report.
The result “was rather encouraging. I was a little surprised” by the findings, commented Chrystie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and director of the Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, also a discussant.
The results “don’t mean that no one benefits from aspirin. Perhaps certain people at risk would benefit from dementia protection. It’s an open question,” commented Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
But others saw the findings as more unequivocally neutral. “This gives us an early, preliminary answer, that aspirin does not seem to improve dementia,” commented Amit Khera, MD, professor and director of Preventive Cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a third discussant at the meeting.
Evidence against routine, widespread primary prevention with aspirin
ASCEND had the primary goal of assessing a daily, 100-mg aspirin dose for its safety and efficacy for preventing vascular events such as MIs and ischemic strokes in 15,480 people with diabetes who were at least 40 years old at enrollment and had no history of cardiovascular disease. The main results came out in 2018 and showed that while aspirin produced a significant benefit by reducing thrombotic events, it also resulted in significantly more major bleeding events compared with placebo, and overall the magnitude of benefit roughly matched magnitude of risk.
These findings, along with similar results from two other high-profile aspirin studies reported at about the same time (ASPREE, and ARRIVE), led to recommendations from groups like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that caution against widespread, routine aspirin use for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in most adults.
The groups instead endorsed a tailored strategy of targeting aspirin to people with a higher than average risk for ischemic thrombotic events and a lower than average bleeding risk. (The most recent aspirin recommendations from the USPSTF, currently in draft form, substantially curtail aspirin’s appropriate use, eliminating it in those over age 60 years.)
However, experts and prevailing practice recommendations continue to endorse routine aspirin use for secondary prevention in patients with an established history of cardiovascular disease.
The new findings reported by Dr. Armitage came from additional analyses of dementia and cognitive impairment overlaid on the main ASCEND outcome analyses. ASCEND actively treated and followed study participants for an average of 7.4 years, then researchers tracked further dementia outcomes based on medical-record entries for an average of another 1.8 years.
ASCEND received partial funding or support from Abbott, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage had no disclosures. Dr. Towfighi, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne has had financial relationships with numerous companies.
FROM AHA 2021
Multivitamins, but not cocoa, tied to slowed brain aging
, with the effects especially pronounced in patients with cardiovascular (CVD) disease, new research suggests.
In addition to testing the effect of a daily multivitamin on cognition, the COSMOS-Mind study examined the effect of cocoa flavanols, but showed no beneficial effect.
The findings “may have important public health implications, particularly for brain health, given the accessibility of multivitamins and minerals, and their low cost and safety,” said study investigator Laura D. Baker, PhD, professor, gerontology and geriatric medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
The findings were presented at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
Placebo-controlled study
The study is a substudy of a large parent trial that compared the effects of cocoa extract (500 mg/day cocoa flavanols) and a standard multivitamin-mineral (MVM) to placebo on cardiovascular and cancer outcomes in more than 21,000 older participants.
COSMOS-Mind included 2,262 adults aged 65 and over without dementia who underwent cognitive testing at baseline and annually for 3 years. The mean age at baseline was 73 years, and 40.4% were men. Most participants (88.7%) were non-Hispanic White and almost half (49.2%) had some post-college education.
All study groups were balanced with respect to demographics, CVD history, diabetes, depression, smoking status, alcohol intake, chocolate intake, and prior multivitamin use. Baseline cognitive scores were similar between study groups. Researchers had complete data on 77% of study participants.
The primary endpoint was the effect of cocoa extract (CE) vs. placebo on Global Cognitive Function composite score. The secondary outcome was the effect of MVM vs. placebo on global cognitive function.
Additional outcomes included the impact of supplements on executive function and memory and the treatment effects for prespecified subgroups, including subjects with a history of CVD.
Using a graph of change over time, Dr. Baker showed there was no effect of cocoa on global cognitive function (effect: 0.03; 95% confidence interval, –0.02 to 0.08; P = .28). “We see the to-be-expected practice effects, but there’s no separation between the active and placebo groups,” she said.
It was a different story for MVM. Here, there was the same practice effect, but the graph showed the lines separated for global cognitive function composite score (effect: 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.12; P = .007).
“We see a positive effect of multivitamins for the active group relative to placebo, peaking at 2 years and then remaining stable over time,” said Dr. Baker.
There were similar findings with MVM for the memory composite score, and the executive function composite score. “We have significance in all three, where the two lines do separate over and above the practice effects,” said Dr. Baker.
New evidence
Investigators found a baseline history of CVD, including transient ischemic attack, heart failure, coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and stent, but not myocardial infarction or stroke as these were excluded in the parent trial because they affected the response to multivitamins.
As expected, those with CVD had lower cognitive scores at baseline. “But after an initial bump due to practice effect, at year 1, the cardiovascular disease history folks continue to benefit from multivitamins, whereas those who got placebo multivitamins continue to decline over time,” said Dr. Baker.
Based on information from a baseline scatter plot of cognitive function scores by age, the study’s modeling estimated the multivitamin treatment effect had a positive benefit of .028 standard deviations (SD) per year.
“Daily multivitamin-mineral supplementation appears to slow cognitive aging by 60% or by 1.8 years,” Dr. Baker added.
To date, the effect of MVM supplementation on cognition has been tested in only one large randomized clinical trial – the Physicians Health Study II. That study did not show an effect, but included only older male physicians – and cognitive testing began 2.5 years after randomization, said Dr. Baker.
“Our study provides new evidence that daily multivitamin supplementation may benefit cognitive function in older women and men, and the multivitamin effects may be more pronounced in participants with cardiovascular disease,” she noted.
For effects of multivitamins on Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and progression, “stay tuned,” Dr. Baker concluded.
Following the presentation, session cochair Suzanne Schindler, MD, PhD, instructor in the department of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, said she and her colleagues “always check vitamin B12 levels” in patients with memory and cognitive difficulties and wondered if study subjects with a low level or deficiency of vitamin B12 benefited from the intervention.
“We are asking ourselves that as well,” said Dr. Baker.
“Some of this is a work in progress,” Dr. Baker added. “We still need to look at that more in-depth to understand whether it might be a mechanism for improvement. I think the results are still out on that topic.”
The study received support from the National Institute on Aging. Pfizer Consumer Healthcare (now GSK Consumer Healthcare) provided study pills and packaging. Dr. Baker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, with the effects especially pronounced in patients with cardiovascular (CVD) disease, new research suggests.
In addition to testing the effect of a daily multivitamin on cognition, the COSMOS-Mind study examined the effect of cocoa flavanols, but showed no beneficial effect.
The findings “may have important public health implications, particularly for brain health, given the accessibility of multivitamins and minerals, and their low cost and safety,” said study investigator Laura D. Baker, PhD, professor, gerontology and geriatric medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
The findings were presented at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
Placebo-controlled study
The study is a substudy of a large parent trial that compared the effects of cocoa extract (500 mg/day cocoa flavanols) and a standard multivitamin-mineral (MVM) to placebo on cardiovascular and cancer outcomes in more than 21,000 older participants.
COSMOS-Mind included 2,262 adults aged 65 and over without dementia who underwent cognitive testing at baseline and annually for 3 years. The mean age at baseline was 73 years, and 40.4% were men. Most participants (88.7%) were non-Hispanic White and almost half (49.2%) had some post-college education.
All study groups were balanced with respect to demographics, CVD history, diabetes, depression, smoking status, alcohol intake, chocolate intake, and prior multivitamin use. Baseline cognitive scores were similar between study groups. Researchers had complete data on 77% of study participants.
The primary endpoint was the effect of cocoa extract (CE) vs. placebo on Global Cognitive Function composite score. The secondary outcome was the effect of MVM vs. placebo on global cognitive function.
Additional outcomes included the impact of supplements on executive function and memory and the treatment effects for prespecified subgroups, including subjects with a history of CVD.
Using a graph of change over time, Dr. Baker showed there was no effect of cocoa on global cognitive function (effect: 0.03; 95% confidence interval, –0.02 to 0.08; P = .28). “We see the to-be-expected practice effects, but there’s no separation between the active and placebo groups,” she said.
It was a different story for MVM. Here, there was the same practice effect, but the graph showed the lines separated for global cognitive function composite score (effect: 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.12; P = .007).
“We see a positive effect of multivitamins for the active group relative to placebo, peaking at 2 years and then remaining stable over time,” said Dr. Baker.
There were similar findings with MVM for the memory composite score, and the executive function composite score. “We have significance in all three, where the two lines do separate over and above the practice effects,” said Dr. Baker.
New evidence
Investigators found a baseline history of CVD, including transient ischemic attack, heart failure, coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and stent, but not myocardial infarction or stroke as these were excluded in the parent trial because they affected the response to multivitamins.
As expected, those with CVD had lower cognitive scores at baseline. “But after an initial bump due to practice effect, at year 1, the cardiovascular disease history folks continue to benefit from multivitamins, whereas those who got placebo multivitamins continue to decline over time,” said Dr. Baker.
Based on information from a baseline scatter plot of cognitive function scores by age, the study’s modeling estimated the multivitamin treatment effect had a positive benefit of .028 standard deviations (SD) per year.
“Daily multivitamin-mineral supplementation appears to slow cognitive aging by 60% or by 1.8 years,” Dr. Baker added.
To date, the effect of MVM supplementation on cognition has been tested in only one large randomized clinical trial – the Physicians Health Study II. That study did not show an effect, but included only older male physicians – and cognitive testing began 2.5 years after randomization, said Dr. Baker.
“Our study provides new evidence that daily multivitamin supplementation may benefit cognitive function in older women and men, and the multivitamin effects may be more pronounced in participants with cardiovascular disease,” she noted.
For effects of multivitamins on Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and progression, “stay tuned,” Dr. Baker concluded.
Following the presentation, session cochair Suzanne Schindler, MD, PhD, instructor in the department of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, said she and her colleagues “always check vitamin B12 levels” in patients with memory and cognitive difficulties and wondered if study subjects with a low level or deficiency of vitamin B12 benefited from the intervention.
“We are asking ourselves that as well,” said Dr. Baker.
“Some of this is a work in progress,” Dr. Baker added. “We still need to look at that more in-depth to understand whether it might be a mechanism for improvement. I think the results are still out on that topic.”
The study received support from the National Institute on Aging. Pfizer Consumer Healthcare (now GSK Consumer Healthcare) provided study pills and packaging. Dr. Baker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, with the effects especially pronounced in patients with cardiovascular (CVD) disease, new research suggests.
In addition to testing the effect of a daily multivitamin on cognition, the COSMOS-Mind study examined the effect of cocoa flavanols, but showed no beneficial effect.
The findings “may have important public health implications, particularly for brain health, given the accessibility of multivitamins and minerals, and their low cost and safety,” said study investigator Laura D. Baker, PhD, professor, gerontology and geriatric medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
The findings were presented at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
Placebo-controlled study
The study is a substudy of a large parent trial that compared the effects of cocoa extract (500 mg/day cocoa flavanols) and a standard multivitamin-mineral (MVM) to placebo on cardiovascular and cancer outcomes in more than 21,000 older participants.
COSMOS-Mind included 2,262 adults aged 65 and over without dementia who underwent cognitive testing at baseline and annually for 3 years. The mean age at baseline was 73 years, and 40.4% were men. Most participants (88.7%) were non-Hispanic White and almost half (49.2%) had some post-college education.
All study groups were balanced with respect to demographics, CVD history, diabetes, depression, smoking status, alcohol intake, chocolate intake, and prior multivitamin use. Baseline cognitive scores were similar between study groups. Researchers had complete data on 77% of study participants.
The primary endpoint was the effect of cocoa extract (CE) vs. placebo on Global Cognitive Function composite score. The secondary outcome was the effect of MVM vs. placebo on global cognitive function.
Additional outcomes included the impact of supplements on executive function and memory and the treatment effects for prespecified subgroups, including subjects with a history of CVD.
Using a graph of change over time, Dr. Baker showed there was no effect of cocoa on global cognitive function (effect: 0.03; 95% confidence interval, –0.02 to 0.08; P = .28). “We see the to-be-expected practice effects, but there’s no separation between the active and placebo groups,” she said.
It was a different story for MVM. Here, there was the same practice effect, but the graph showed the lines separated for global cognitive function composite score (effect: 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.12; P = .007).
“We see a positive effect of multivitamins for the active group relative to placebo, peaking at 2 years and then remaining stable over time,” said Dr. Baker.
There were similar findings with MVM for the memory composite score, and the executive function composite score. “We have significance in all three, where the two lines do separate over and above the practice effects,” said Dr. Baker.
New evidence
Investigators found a baseline history of CVD, including transient ischemic attack, heart failure, coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and stent, but not myocardial infarction or stroke as these were excluded in the parent trial because they affected the response to multivitamins.
As expected, those with CVD had lower cognitive scores at baseline. “But after an initial bump due to practice effect, at year 1, the cardiovascular disease history folks continue to benefit from multivitamins, whereas those who got placebo multivitamins continue to decline over time,” said Dr. Baker.
Based on information from a baseline scatter plot of cognitive function scores by age, the study’s modeling estimated the multivitamin treatment effect had a positive benefit of .028 standard deviations (SD) per year.
“Daily multivitamin-mineral supplementation appears to slow cognitive aging by 60% or by 1.8 years,” Dr. Baker added.
To date, the effect of MVM supplementation on cognition has been tested in only one large randomized clinical trial – the Physicians Health Study II. That study did not show an effect, but included only older male physicians – and cognitive testing began 2.5 years after randomization, said Dr. Baker.
“Our study provides new evidence that daily multivitamin supplementation may benefit cognitive function in older women and men, and the multivitamin effects may be more pronounced in participants with cardiovascular disease,” she noted.
For effects of multivitamins on Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and progression, “stay tuned,” Dr. Baker concluded.
Following the presentation, session cochair Suzanne Schindler, MD, PhD, instructor in the department of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, said she and her colleagues “always check vitamin B12 levels” in patients with memory and cognitive difficulties and wondered if study subjects with a low level or deficiency of vitamin B12 benefited from the intervention.
“We are asking ourselves that as well,” said Dr. Baker.
“Some of this is a work in progress,” Dr. Baker added. “We still need to look at that more in-depth to understand whether it might be a mechanism for improvement. I think the results are still out on that topic.”
The study received support from the National Institute on Aging. Pfizer Consumer Healthcare (now GSK Consumer Healthcare) provided study pills and packaging. Dr. Baker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antihypertensives tied to lower Alzheimer’s disease pathology
new research shows.
Investigators found that use of any antihypertensive was associated with an 18% decrease in Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, a 22% decrease in Lewy bodies, and a 40% decrease in TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43), a protein relevant to several neurodegenerative diseases. Diuretics in particular appear to be driving the association.
Although diuretics might be a better option for preventing brain neuropathology, it’s too early to make firm recommendations solely on the basis of these results as to what blood pressure–lowering agent to prescribe a particular patient, said study investigator Ahmad Sajjadi, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of California, Irvine.
“This is early stages and preliminary results,” said Dr. Sajjadi, “but it’s food for thought.”
The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.
Autopsy data
The study included 3,315 individuals who had donated their brains to research. The National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center maintains a database that includes data from 32 Alzheimer’s disease research centers in the United States. Participants in the study must have visited one of these centers within 4 years of death. Each person whose brain was included in the study underwent two or more BP measurements on at least 50% of visits.
The mean age at death was 81.7 years, and the mean time between last visit and death was 13.1 months. About 44.4% of participants were women, 57.0% had at least a college degree, and 84.7% had cognitive impairment.
Researchers defined hypertension as systolic BP of at least 130 mm Hg, diastolic BP of at least 80 mm Hg, mean arterial pressure of at least 100 mm Hg, and pulse pressure of at least 60 mm Hg.
Antihypertensive medications that were evaluated included antiadrenergic agents, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, vasodilators, and combination therapies.
The investigators assessed the number of neuropathologies. In addition to Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, which included amyloid-beta, tau, Lewy bodies, and TDP-43, they also assessed for atherosclerosis, arteriolosclerosis, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, and hippocampal sclerosis.
Results showed that use of any antihypertensive was associated with a lower likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (odds ratio, 0.822), Lewy bodies (OR, 0.786), and TDP 43 (OR, 0.597). Use of antihypertensives was also associated with increased odds of atherosclerosis (OR, 1.217) (all P < .5.)
The study showed that hypertensive systolic BP was associated with higher odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (OR, 1.28; P < .5).
Differences by drug type
Results differed in accordance with antihypertensive class. Angiotensin II receptor blockers decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology by 40% (OR, 0.60; P < .5). Diuretics decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease by 36% (OR, 0.64; P < .001) and of hippocampal sclerosis by 32% (OR, 0.68; P < .5).
“We see diuretics are a main driver, especially for lower odds of Alzheimer’s disease and lower odds of hippocampal sclerosis,” said lead author Hanna L. Nguyen, a first-year medical student at the University of California, Irvine.
The results indicate that it is the medications, not BP levels, that account for these associations, she added.
One potential mechanism linking antihypertensives to brain pathology is that with these agents, BP is maintained in the target zone. Blood pressure that’s too high can damage blood vessels, whereas BP that’s too low may result in less than adequate perfusion, said Ms. Nguyen.
These medications may also alter pathways leading to degeneration and could, for example, affect the apo E mechanism of Alzheimer’s disease, she added.
The researchers plan to conduct subset analyses using apo E genetic status and age of death.
Although this is a “massive database,” it has limitations. For example, said Dr. Sajjadi, it does not reveal when patients started taking BP medication, how long they had been taking it, or why.
“We don’t know the exact the reason they were taking these medications. Was it just hypertension, or did they also have heart disease, stroke, a kidney problem, or was there another explanation,” he said.
Following the study presentation, session comoderator Krish Sathian, MBBS, PhD, professor of neurology, neural, and behavioral sciences, and psychology and director of the Neuroscience Institute, Penn State University, Hershey, called this work “fascinating. It provides a lot of data that really touches on everyday practice,” inasmuch as clinicians often prescribe antihypertensive medications and see patients with these kinds of brain disorders.
The investigators and Dr. Sathian reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
Investigators found that use of any antihypertensive was associated with an 18% decrease in Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, a 22% decrease in Lewy bodies, and a 40% decrease in TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43), a protein relevant to several neurodegenerative diseases. Diuretics in particular appear to be driving the association.
Although diuretics might be a better option for preventing brain neuropathology, it’s too early to make firm recommendations solely on the basis of these results as to what blood pressure–lowering agent to prescribe a particular patient, said study investigator Ahmad Sajjadi, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of California, Irvine.
“This is early stages and preliminary results,” said Dr. Sajjadi, “but it’s food for thought.”
The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.
Autopsy data
The study included 3,315 individuals who had donated their brains to research. The National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center maintains a database that includes data from 32 Alzheimer’s disease research centers in the United States. Participants in the study must have visited one of these centers within 4 years of death. Each person whose brain was included in the study underwent two or more BP measurements on at least 50% of visits.
The mean age at death was 81.7 years, and the mean time between last visit and death was 13.1 months. About 44.4% of participants were women, 57.0% had at least a college degree, and 84.7% had cognitive impairment.
Researchers defined hypertension as systolic BP of at least 130 mm Hg, diastolic BP of at least 80 mm Hg, mean arterial pressure of at least 100 mm Hg, and pulse pressure of at least 60 mm Hg.
Antihypertensive medications that were evaluated included antiadrenergic agents, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, vasodilators, and combination therapies.
The investigators assessed the number of neuropathologies. In addition to Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, which included amyloid-beta, tau, Lewy bodies, and TDP-43, they also assessed for atherosclerosis, arteriolosclerosis, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, and hippocampal sclerosis.
Results showed that use of any antihypertensive was associated with a lower likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (odds ratio, 0.822), Lewy bodies (OR, 0.786), and TDP 43 (OR, 0.597). Use of antihypertensives was also associated with increased odds of atherosclerosis (OR, 1.217) (all P < .5.)
The study showed that hypertensive systolic BP was associated with higher odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (OR, 1.28; P < .5).
Differences by drug type
Results differed in accordance with antihypertensive class. Angiotensin II receptor blockers decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology by 40% (OR, 0.60; P < .5). Diuretics decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease by 36% (OR, 0.64; P < .001) and of hippocampal sclerosis by 32% (OR, 0.68; P < .5).
“We see diuretics are a main driver, especially for lower odds of Alzheimer’s disease and lower odds of hippocampal sclerosis,” said lead author Hanna L. Nguyen, a first-year medical student at the University of California, Irvine.
The results indicate that it is the medications, not BP levels, that account for these associations, she added.
One potential mechanism linking antihypertensives to brain pathology is that with these agents, BP is maintained in the target zone. Blood pressure that’s too high can damage blood vessels, whereas BP that’s too low may result in less than adequate perfusion, said Ms. Nguyen.
These medications may also alter pathways leading to degeneration and could, for example, affect the apo E mechanism of Alzheimer’s disease, she added.
The researchers plan to conduct subset analyses using apo E genetic status and age of death.
Although this is a “massive database,” it has limitations. For example, said Dr. Sajjadi, it does not reveal when patients started taking BP medication, how long they had been taking it, or why.
“We don’t know the exact the reason they were taking these medications. Was it just hypertension, or did they also have heart disease, stroke, a kidney problem, or was there another explanation,” he said.
Following the study presentation, session comoderator Krish Sathian, MBBS, PhD, professor of neurology, neural, and behavioral sciences, and psychology and director of the Neuroscience Institute, Penn State University, Hershey, called this work “fascinating. It provides a lot of data that really touches on everyday practice,” inasmuch as clinicians often prescribe antihypertensive medications and see patients with these kinds of brain disorders.
The investigators and Dr. Sathian reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
Investigators found that use of any antihypertensive was associated with an 18% decrease in Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, a 22% decrease in Lewy bodies, and a 40% decrease in TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43), a protein relevant to several neurodegenerative diseases. Diuretics in particular appear to be driving the association.
Although diuretics might be a better option for preventing brain neuropathology, it’s too early to make firm recommendations solely on the basis of these results as to what blood pressure–lowering agent to prescribe a particular patient, said study investigator Ahmad Sajjadi, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of California, Irvine.
“This is early stages and preliminary results,” said Dr. Sajjadi, “but it’s food for thought.”
The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.
Autopsy data
The study included 3,315 individuals who had donated their brains to research. The National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center maintains a database that includes data from 32 Alzheimer’s disease research centers in the United States. Participants in the study must have visited one of these centers within 4 years of death. Each person whose brain was included in the study underwent two or more BP measurements on at least 50% of visits.
The mean age at death was 81.7 years, and the mean time between last visit and death was 13.1 months. About 44.4% of participants were women, 57.0% had at least a college degree, and 84.7% had cognitive impairment.
Researchers defined hypertension as systolic BP of at least 130 mm Hg, diastolic BP of at least 80 mm Hg, mean arterial pressure of at least 100 mm Hg, and pulse pressure of at least 60 mm Hg.
Antihypertensive medications that were evaluated included antiadrenergic agents, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, vasodilators, and combination therapies.
The investigators assessed the number of neuropathologies. In addition to Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, which included amyloid-beta, tau, Lewy bodies, and TDP-43, they also assessed for atherosclerosis, arteriolosclerosis, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, and hippocampal sclerosis.
Results showed that use of any antihypertensive was associated with a lower likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (odds ratio, 0.822), Lewy bodies (OR, 0.786), and TDP 43 (OR, 0.597). Use of antihypertensives was also associated with increased odds of atherosclerosis (OR, 1.217) (all P < .5.)
The study showed that hypertensive systolic BP was associated with higher odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (OR, 1.28; P < .5).
Differences by drug type
Results differed in accordance with antihypertensive class. Angiotensin II receptor blockers decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology by 40% (OR, 0.60; P < .5). Diuretics decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease by 36% (OR, 0.64; P < .001) and of hippocampal sclerosis by 32% (OR, 0.68; P < .5).
“We see diuretics are a main driver, especially for lower odds of Alzheimer’s disease and lower odds of hippocampal sclerosis,” said lead author Hanna L. Nguyen, a first-year medical student at the University of California, Irvine.
The results indicate that it is the medications, not BP levels, that account for these associations, she added.
One potential mechanism linking antihypertensives to brain pathology is that with these agents, BP is maintained in the target zone. Blood pressure that’s too high can damage blood vessels, whereas BP that’s too low may result in less than adequate perfusion, said Ms. Nguyen.
These medications may also alter pathways leading to degeneration and could, for example, affect the apo E mechanism of Alzheimer’s disease, she added.
The researchers plan to conduct subset analyses using apo E genetic status and age of death.
Although this is a “massive database,” it has limitations. For example, said Dr. Sajjadi, it does not reveal when patients started taking BP medication, how long they had been taking it, or why.
“We don’t know the exact the reason they were taking these medications. Was it just hypertension, or did they also have heart disease, stroke, a kidney problem, or was there another explanation,” he said.
Following the study presentation, session comoderator Krish Sathian, MBBS, PhD, professor of neurology, neural, and behavioral sciences, and psychology and director of the Neuroscience Institute, Penn State University, Hershey, called this work “fascinating. It provides a lot of data that really touches on everyday practice,” inasmuch as clinicians often prescribe antihypertensive medications and see patients with these kinds of brain disorders.
The investigators and Dr. Sathian reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANA 2021
Alopecia tied to a threefold increased risk for dementia
Alopecia areata (AA) has been linked to a significantly increased risk for dementia, new research shows.
After controlling for an array of potential confounders, investigators found a threefold higher risk of developing any form of dementia and a fourfold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in those with AA versus the controls.
“AA shares a similar inflammatory signature with dementia and has great psychological impacts that lead to poor social engagement,” lead author Cheng-Yuan Li, MD, MSc, of the department of dermatology, Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital.
“Poor social engagement and shared inflammatory cytokines might both be important links between AA and dementia,” said Dr. Li, who is also affiliated with the School of Medicine and the Institute of Brain Science at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei.
The study was published online Oct. 26, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m13931).
Significant psychological impact
Patients with AA often experience anxiety and depression, possibly caused by the negative emotional and psychological impact of the hair loss and partial or even complete baldness associated with the disease, the authors noted.
However, AA is also associated with an array of other atopic and autoimmune diseases, including psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
Epidemiologic research has suggested a link between dementia and autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis and SLE, with some evidence suggesting that autoimmune and inflammatory mechanisms may “play a role” in the development of AD.
Dementia in general and AD in particular, “have been shown to include an inflammatory component” that may share some of the same mediators seen in AA (eg, IL-1 beta, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha).
Moreover, “the great negative psychosocial impact of AA might result in poor social engagement, a typical risk factor for dementia,” said Dr. Li. The investigators sought to investigate whether patients with AA actually do have a higher dementia risk than individuals without AA.
The researchers used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, comparing 2,534 patients with AA against 25,340 controls matched for age, sex, residence, income, dementia-related comorbidities, systemic steroid use, and annual outpatient visits. Participants were enrolled between 1998 and 2011 and followed to the end of 2013.
The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 years, and a little over half (57.6%) were female. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (32.3%), followed by dyslipidemia (27%) and diabetes (15.4%).
Dual intervention
After adjusting for potential confounders, those with AA were more likely to develop dementia, AD, and unspecified dementia, compared with controls. They also had a numerically higher risk for vascular dementia, compared with controls, but it was not statistically significant.
When participants were stratified by age, investigators found a significant association between AA and higher risk for any dementia as well as unspecified dementia in individuals of all ages and an increased risk for AD in patients with dementia age at onset of 65 years and older.
The mean age of dementia diagnosis was considerably younger in patients with AA versus controls (73.4 vs. 78.9 years, P = .002). The risk for any dementia and unspecified dementia was higher in patients of both sexes, but the risk for AD was higher only in male patients.
Sensitivity analyses that excluded the first year or first 3 years of observation yielded similar and consistent findings.
“Intervention targeting poor social engagement and inflammatory cytokines may be beneficial to AA-associated dementia,” said Dr. Li.
“Physicians should be more aware of this possible association, help reduce disease discrimination among the public, and encourage more social engagement for AA patients,” he said.
“Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology between AA and dementia risk,” he added.
No cause and effect
Commenting on the study, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific affairs, Alzheimer’s Association, said, “We continue to learn about and better understand factors that may increase or decrease a person’s risk of dementia.”
“While we know the immune system plays a role in Alzheimer’s and other dementia, we are still investigating links between, and impact of, autoimmune diseases – like alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and others – on our overall health and our brains, [which] may eventually give us important information on risk reduction strategies as well,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the research.
She cautioned that although the study did show a correlation between AA and dementia risk, this does not equate to a demonstration of cause and effect.
At present, “the message for clinicians is that when a patient comes to your office with complaints about their memory, they should, No. 1, be taken seriously; and, No. 2, receive a thorough evaluation that takes into account the many factors that may lead to cognitive decline,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Dr. Li, coauthors, and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Alopecia areata (AA) has been linked to a significantly increased risk for dementia, new research shows.
After controlling for an array of potential confounders, investigators found a threefold higher risk of developing any form of dementia and a fourfold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in those with AA versus the controls.
“AA shares a similar inflammatory signature with dementia and has great psychological impacts that lead to poor social engagement,” lead author Cheng-Yuan Li, MD, MSc, of the department of dermatology, Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital.
“Poor social engagement and shared inflammatory cytokines might both be important links between AA and dementia,” said Dr. Li, who is also affiliated with the School of Medicine and the Institute of Brain Science at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei.
The study was published online Oct. 26, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m13931).
Significant psychological impact
Patients with AA often experience anxiety and depression, possibly caused by the negative emotional and psychological impact of the hair loss and partial or even complete baldness associated with the disease, the authors noted.
However, AA is also associated with an array of other atopic and autoimmune diseases, including psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
Epidemiologic research has suggested a link between dementia and autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis and SLE, with some evidence suggesting that autoimmune and inflammatory mechanisms may “play a role” in the development of AD.
Dementia in general and AD in particular, “have been shown to include an inflammatory component” that may share some of the same mediators seen in AA (eg, IL-1 beta, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha).
Moreover, “the great negative psychosocial impact of AA might result in poor social engagement, a typical risk factor for dementia,” said Dr. Li. The investigators sought to investigate whether patients with AA actually do have a higher dementia risk than individuals without AA.
The researchers used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, comparing 2,534 patients with AA against 25,340 controls matched for age, sex, residence, income, dementia-related comorbidities, systemic steroid use, and annual outpatient visits. Participants were enrolled between 1998 and 2011 and followed to the end of 2013.
The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 years, and a little over half (57.6%) were female. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (32.3%), followed by dyslipidemia (27%) and diabetes (15.4%).
Dual intervention
After adjusting for potential confounders, those with AA were more likely to develop dementia, AD, and unspecified dementia, compared with controls. They also had a numerically higher risk for vascular dementia, compared with controls, but it was not statistically significant.
When participants were stratified by age, investigators found a significant association between AA and higher risk for any dementia as well as unspecified dementia in individuals of all ages and an increased risk for AD in patients with dementia age at onset of 65 years and older.
The mean age of dementia diagnosis was considerably younger in patients with AA versus controls (73.4 vs. 78.9 years, P = .002). The risk for any dementia and unspecified dementia was higher in patients of both sexes, but the risk for AD was higher only in male patients.
Sensitivity analyses that excluded the first year or first 3 years of observation yielded similar and consistent findings.
“Intervention targeting poor social engagement and inflammatory cytokines may be beneficial to AA-associated dementia,” said Dr. Li.
“Physicians should be more aware of this possible association, help reduce disease discrimination among the public, and encourage more social engagement for AA patients,” he said.
“Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology between AA and dementia risk,” he added.
No cause and effect
Commenting on the study, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific affairs, Alzheimer’s Association, said, “We continue to learn about and better understand factors that may increase or decrease a person’s risk of dementia.”
“While we know the immune system plays a role in Alzheimer’s and other dementia, we are still investigating links between, and impact of, autoimmune diseases – like alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and others – on our overall health and our brains, [which] may eventually give us important information on risk reduction strategies as well,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the research.
She cautioned that although the study did show a correlation between AA and dementia risk, this does not equate to a demonstration of cause and effect.
At present, “the message for clinicians is that when a patient comes to your office with complaints about their memory, they should, No. 1, be taken seriously; and, No. 2, receive a thorough evaluation that takes into account the many factors that may lead to cognitive decline,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Dr. Li, coauthors, and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Alopecia areata (AA) has been linked to a significantly increased risk for dementia, new research shows.
After controlling for an array of potential confounders, investigators found a threefold higher risk of developing any form of dementia and a fourfold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in those with AA versus the controls.
“AA shares a similar inflammatory signature with dementia and has great psychological impacts that lead to poor social engagement,” lead author Cheng-Yuan Li, MD, MSc, of the department of dermatology, Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital.
“Poor social engagement and shared inflammatory cytokines might both be important links between AA and dementia,” said Dr. Li, who is also affiliated with the School of Medicine and the Institute of Brain Science at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei.
The study was published online Oct. 26, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m13931).
Significant psychological impact
Patients with AA often experience anxiety and depression, possibly caused by the negative emotional and psychological impact of the hair loss and partial or even complete baldness associated with the disease, the authors noted.
However, AA is also associated with an array of other atopic and autoimmune diseases, including psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
Epidemiologic research has suggested a link between dementia and autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis and SLE, with some evidence suggesting that autoimmune and inflammatory mechanisms may “play a role” in the development of AD.
Dementia in general and AD in particular, “have been shown to include an inflammatory component” that may share some of the same mediators seen in AA (eg, IL-1 beta, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha).
Moreover, “the great negative psychosocial impact of AA might result in poor social engagement, a typical risk factor for dementia,” said Dr. Li. The investigators sought to investigate whether patients with AA actually do have a higher dementia risk than individuals without AA.
The researchers used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, comparing 2,534 patients with AA against 25,340 controls matched for age, sex, residence, income, dementia-related comorbidities, systemic steroid use, and annual outpatient visits. Participants were enrolled between 1998 and 2011 and followed to the end of 2013.
The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 years, and a little over half (57.6%) were female. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (32.3%), followed by dyslipidemia (27%) and diabetes (15.4%).
Dual intervention
After adjusting for potential confounders, those with AA were more likely to develop dementia, AD, and unspecified dementia, compared with controls. They also had a numerically higher risk for vascular dementia, compared with controls, but it was not statistically significant.
When participants were stratified by age, investigators found a significant association between AA and higher risk for any dementia as well as unspecified dementia in individuals of all ages and an increased risk for AD in patients with dementia age at onset of 65 years and older.
The mean age of dementia diagnosis was considerably younger in patients with AA versus controls (73.4 vs. 78.9 years, P = .002). The risk for any dementia and unspecified dementia was higher in patients of both sexes, but the risk for AD was higher only in male patients.
Sensitivity analyses that excluded the first year or first 3 years of observation yielded similar and consistent findings.
“Intervention targeting poor social engagement and inflammatory cytokines may be beneficial to AA-associated dementia,” said Dr. Li.
“Physicians should be more aware of this possible association, help reduce disease discrimination among the public, and encourage more social engagement for AA patients,” he said.
“Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology between AA and dementia risk,” he added.
No cause and effect
Commenting on the study, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific affairs, Alzheimer’s Association, said, “We continue to learn about and better understand factors that may increase or decrease a person’s risk of dementia.”
“While we know the immune system plays a role in Alzheimer’s and other dementia, we are still investigating links between, and impact of, autoimmune diseases – like alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and others – on our overall health and our brains, [which] may eventually give us important information on risk reduction strategies as well,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the research.
She cautioned that although the study did show a correlation between AA and dementia risk, this does not equate to a demonstration of cause and effect.
At present, “the message for clinicians is that when a patient comes to your office with complaints about their memory, they should, No. 1, be taken seriously; and, No. 2, receive a thorough evaluation that takes into account the many factors that may lead to cognitive decline,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Dr. Li, coauthors, and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA not recognizing efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies
Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.
If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.
On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.
“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.
For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.
Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.
Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.
However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.
Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.
To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .
“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.
He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.
“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.
So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.
Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT2 antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.
“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.
While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.
“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.
The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.
“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited
“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.
In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.
Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”
“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.
Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.
If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.
On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.
“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.
For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.
Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.
Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.
However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.
Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.
To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .
“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.
He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.
“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.
So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.
Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT2 antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.
“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.
While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.
“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.
The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.
“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited
“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.
In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.
Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”
“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.
Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.
If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.
On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.
“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.
For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.
Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.
Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.
However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.
Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.
To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .
“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.
He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.
“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.
So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.
Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT2 antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.
“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.
While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.
“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.
The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.
“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited
“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.
In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.
Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”
“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.
Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY UPDATE